Religion
-
O-Trap
I would say a good (albeit shrinking) portion of Christianity. Are there other religions who do this as well?OSH;1390361 wrote:And what "pretty small segment" am I referring to?
This is a relatively silly statement. Science is a study. It isn't a truth. It seeks to FIND truth, but it, itself, isn't truth.Devils Advocate;1391307 wrote:
And that which IS true, is indeed true regardless of who believes it, but that isn't a distinction of only physical truth. -
OSH
Most religions have someone (or staff) that gets paid for "leading people in the faith." Those same religions also have large, often gaudy temples of grandeur too.O-Trap;1391417 wrote:I would say a good (albeit shrinking) portion of Christianity. Are there other religions who do this as well?
It's not limited to Christianity, just most often thought of. -
Devils Advocate
O-Trap;1391417 wrote: This is a relatively silly statement. Science is a study. It isn't a truth. It seeks to FIND truth, but it, itself, isn't truth.
And that which IS true, is indeed true regardless of who believes it, but that isn't a distinction of only physical truth.
And this is a pompous arrogant ass LJ-ish statement. Not really a distinction between you or LJ, or even a reflection on you personaly.
Lighten up Shirley!
-
sleeper
Science is a study; religion is a guess based on an old book.
Cue O-trap's moving the goal post response of saying "Well not all religions are based on an old book; my very specific made up religion(an oxymoron) does not have a book". Believers are always moving the goal posts because they have to in order to justify their erroneous belief system and circumvent all logic and reason when backed into a corner. -
O-Trap
Ah, true. I was more referring to the notion of coerced giving of a specific amount, but you are correct.OSH;1391526 wrote:Most religions have someone (or staff) that gets paid for "leading people in the faith." Those same religions also have large, often gaudy temples of grandeur too.
It's not limited to Christianity, just most often thought of.
Sorry. I wasn't intending to be a dick or anything, and I didn't even mean for it to reflect on you for posting it. It was more toward the person who made the GIF.Devils Advocate;1391534 wrote:And this is a pompous arrogant ass LJ-ish statement. Not really a distinction between you or LJ, or even a reflection on you personaly.
Lighten up Shirley!
Where did I move the goalpost on the book thing? Show me.sleeper;1391537 wrote:Science is a study; religion is a guess based on an old book.
Cue O-trap's moving the goal post response of saying "Well not all religions are based on an old book; my very specific made up religion(an oxymoron) does not have a book". Believers are always moving the goal posts because they have to in order to justify their erroneous belief system and circumvent all logic and reason when backed into a corner.
As for logic and reason, if applied philosophically (instead of just empirically), a reasonable case for theism can be demonstrated.
And your description of religion is pretty close to a straw man. One is an empirical study. The other is a philosophical study. Both have plenty of people who believe them to be the final authorities on knowledge, and many in both camps do so just because someone else told them so. -
sleeper
Except philosophy is bullshit and based on the same thing religion is based on; talking heads seeking to assert their influence on an ignorant populace.
-
O-Trap
Interesting, given that logic itself is philosophical, not natural. The same applies with reason. Just as well, much of what we apply to the natural sciences is, in fact philosophical mathematics.sleeper;1391572 wrote:Except philosophy is bullshit and based on the same thing religion is based on; talking heads seeking to assert their influence on an ignorant populace.
In fact, the declarative statement to assert science as the only epistemological option is, in itself, a philosophical statement, as such a postulate cannot be knowable by the use of the hard sciences.
Whether or not you think philosophy is bullshit, you've been using it throughout this thread. -
jmog
OTrap already said it, but science is a study to find truth/fact, not truth/fact in and of itself.Devils Advocate;1391307 wrote:
By definition....
science-1. the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement -
sleeper
If philosophy is backed by solid evidence(or lack thereof) then yes I have been using philosophy. Not proof or any correlated evidence that would indicate the existence of a particular religion being accurate. ZERO, NONE, ZILCH. :thumbdown:
-
jmog
Interesting since logic is actually philosophical, not empirical/scientific. It's as easy as going to any major university and seeing which department the logic classes are offered from. It is always the psychology/philosophy departments.sleeper;1391572 wrote:Except philosophy is bull**** and based on the same thing religion is based on; talking heads seeking to assert their influence on an ignorant populace.
I guess since you say you always use "logic and reason", and since reason as a verb means to argue using logic, you just blew yourself out of the water. You say philosophy is bullshit so you must use bullshit. -
O-Trap
You've tried appealing to logic. Logic is a philosophical study. Not a physical one.sleeper;1391584 wrote:If philosophy is backed by solid evidence(or lack thereof) then yes I have been using philosophy.
Hell, epistemology itself is purely philosophical, and that has essentially been the topic of this entire thread. Your statement that physical evidence is required for knowledge is an epistemological statement. It is used to substantiate science's position in epistemology, but it is not a scientific statement.
In essence, the minute you claimed that science is the only study by which we may know fact, you moved into philosophy, because the discussion on how to "know" something ... anything ... is a philosophical one. Not a physical one.
I didn't say you were substantiating an ideational worldview (which isn't technically the same as religious worldview anyway). I just said you were using philosophy in this thread when you appealed to logic, reason, or an epistemological claim.sleeper;1391584 wrote:Not proof or any correlated evidence that would indicate the existence of a particular religion being accurate. ZERO, NONE, ZILCH. :thumbdown: -
sleeper
Utilize semantics much? Logic and reason, in the context in which I was using, refers to empirical and well correlated evidence from a multitude of peer reviewed research from any and all sources. Sorry that your definition of logic and reason coincides with an old book, likely 100% fiction with some historical references. Time to grow up jmog. I hope your children "see the light" before their time is done because you've clearly lost it.jmog;1391589 wrote:Interesting since logic is actually philosophical, not empirical/scientific. It's as easy as going to any major university and seeing which department the logic classes are offered from. It is always the psychology/philosophy departments.
I guess since you say you always use "logic and reason", and since reason as a verb means to argue using logic, you just blew yourself out of the water. You say philosophy is bullshit so you must use bullshit. -
sleeper
This is the only "logic" you need.You've tried appealing to logic. Logic is a philosophical study. Not a physical one.
Proof of religious god < Science -
O-Trap
That's not logic. That's a declarative claim in an epistemological vacuum.sleeper;1391599 wrote:This is the only "logic" you need.
Proof of religious god < Science
Hope this helps. -
sleeper
Google "Boolean logic".O-Trap;1391624 wrote:That's not logic. That's a declarative claim in an epistemological vacuum.
Hope this helps. -
O-Trap
Just did. Doesn't suggest that a claim is inherently true without substantiation.sleeper;1391625 wrote:Google "Boolean logic".
Actually, Every example they give is philosophical in nature. -
sleeper
I understand that your philosophy is influenced by a bigoted, hateful religious presence and not reality. Therefore, I am willing to ignore your defunct ability to apply logic and reason, as evidence by all evidence to date, to formulate a conclusion.O-Trap;1391632 wrote:Just did. Doesn't suggest that a claim is inherently true without substantiation.
Actually, Every example they give is philosophical in nature. -
O-Trap
My philosophy resulted in a theistic worldview. It wasn't the other way around. We've already established that in this thread, so I'm unsure why you're bringing it up in an almost red herring fashion.sleeper;1391635 wrote:I understand that your philosophy is influenced by a bigoted, hateful religious presence and not reality. Therefore, I am willing to ignore your defunct ability to apply logic and reason, as evidence by all evidence to date, to formulate a conclusion.
Moreover, I question your understanding of reason and logic, as evidenced by not only the fact that they exist exclusively under the umbrella of philosophy, which you referred to as "bullshit," but also based on the fact that the claim to which you keep returning is the kind of claim that can only be substantiated by a epistemological framework, which would require reasoning and logic, but would be unaffected by any empirical evidence by default.
I have formulated a conclusion using such philosophical pursuits here. You have not substantiated your own claim that science is the exclusive epistemological tool.
I'm merely waiting for you to do so, though I wait in vain because the statement is self-defeating. If science is, indeed, the only way you can know something, than you cannot know that to be true, because science cannot substantiate it as a claim. -
jmog
"My definition of logic and reason" came straight from the dictionary, your definition came from your own belief of what it means. I will accept the widely used definition in Webster's, thank you.sleeper;1391596 wrote:Utilize semantics much? Logic and reason, in the context in which I was using, refers to empirical and well correlated evidence from a multitude of peer reviewed research from any and all sources. Sorry that your definition of logic and reason coincides with an old book, likely 100% fiction with some historical references. Time to grow up jmog. I hope your children "see the light" before their time is done because you've clearly lost it. -
sleeper
It's called faith jmog. You of all people should know you don't need anything else. I understand why you would use the dictionary as well; you like drawing "evidence" from dusty old books written hundreds of years ago.jmog;1391646 wrote:"My definition of logic and reason" came straight from the dictionary, your definition came from your own belief of what it means. I will accept the widely used definition in Webster's, thank you. -
sleeper
Philosophy does not equate to truth. Your theistic worldview is based on your philosophy which isn't substantiated by a shred of evidence; your positive feedback loop is impressive though.My philosophy resulted in a theistic worldview. It wasn't the other way around. We've already established that in this thread, so I'm unsure why you're bringing it up in an almost red herring fashion. -
O-Trap
Philosophy, like science, is merely a study, and it is used to substantiate what is or is not true. In fact, taking philosophy out of the equation, your position is no more concretely substantiated than my own, because without such philosophy, which "isn't substantiated," you'd lose the ability to draw science as an epistemological tool.sleeper;1391649 wrote:Philosophy does not equate to truth. Your theistic worldview is based on your philosophy which isn't substantiated by a shred of evidence; your positive feedback loop is impressive though.
Ultimately, without the philosophical study of epistemology, "evidence" doesn't exist. Physical things prove nothing. In order for them to prove something, you need the claim to be true which says that science is a study by which we can understand our world better. That statement itself, though, is not empirically provable, so to suggest that it is an absolute truth, one must lend credibility to this "unsubstantiated" philosophy.
If one attempts to do so otherwise, which you seem to be doing, you resort to circular reasoning. That's the problem with the statement, because for it to be true, the value of epistemology is gone. It is self-defeating in the same way as the following sentence:
"All sentences are shorter than five words."
It's self-defeating, because the sentence itself has more than five words.
Now, if we get into a fact claim like the one you keep using, we see something like this:
"Nothing can be known as truth except that which is evidenced using the studies of the hard sciences."
We have the self-defeat, because this very sentence is not something which can be known by using evidence as processed by the hard sciences.
There is no loop in my notions. There is, however, some level of circular reasoning in your own. -
jmog
So now you are an etymologist?sleeper;1391649 wrote:Philosophy does not equate to truth. Your theistic worldview is based on your philosophy which isn't substantiated by a shred of evidence; your positive feedback loop is impressive though.
I could have swore you said your college degree was in some sort of business/finance and not anything scientific, etymology, philosophy, etc. -
sleeper
Finance. The only knowledge one needs to dispel myths and fairy tales.jmog;1391663 wrote:So now you are an etymologist?
I could have swore you said your college degree was in some sort of business/finance and not anything scientific, etymology, philosophy, etc. -
sleeper
That's fine. Please feel free to substitute faith for any circular reasoning you feel I have engaged in. I have faith that I did not therefore I am correct.There is no loop in my notions. There is, however, some level of circular reasoning in your own.