261 replies to this topic

[TheAvengerLever]

The reasons I don't believe in other religions, or want to, is that Christianity seems so much more than what they prescribe in doctrine.

I don't know if you're a convert to Christianity or what so I don't want to assume about you personally (all I have to go by is middle-class, white male which says a lot to me...), but the reason that the majority of Christians are Christians is because it's tradition. I was raised Catholic because my parents were Catholic. They're Catholic because their parents were Catholic and so on all the way back to Ireland and the English missionaries.

I've been through the Catholic school system, and I've lived the indoctrination process. When you're raised in a specific culture with specific "game rules" you are brought up to fit that system. Kids brought up Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, racist, sexist, capitalist, communist, socialist, anarchist, etc. most likely will end up subscribing to that particular belief system. This is where the problem lies for me. You have these impressionable children with sponge brains that soak up anything you tell them, and you start treating these local, cultural truths as the absolute Truth. It's completely unmeasurable and ultimately unprovable, yet within these borders it's touted around as the only truth. Just as within another culture there's a completely different truth which is so obvious to them as Christianity is here. Of course, you can just tell me to fuck off and that you think the way you do because you choose, but I have to ask if you were born in India are you absolutely sure you wouldn't be saying these same things about Hinduism? If you can say yes then that's great for you, but unfortunately we're still in the minority. I'd love to see a majority of free thinkers who can remain somewhat agnostic at least until they can buy beer or vote or something.

It's quite obvious I was destined to become Christian. I'm sure that if I were born in some other culture, I'd be a Christian. No, I'm not into predestination. You did get one thing right. I barely scrape Middle Class.

[vodkamaru]

No, I'm not into predestination.

It's quite obvious I was destined to become Christian.

Riiiiight...

[wisp]

"No one comes to the Father but by [the way, the truth, and the life]."

i.e., by "Christian" conduct.

No. It plainly means by Jesus Christ.

The thing that unites christians of most denominations is that the truth that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and through beleivng and accepting him into our lives, we can spend eternity with God in heaven.

It does not mean that if we live a godly life, without Jesus, we get in anyway. You have accept Jesus Christ as your saviour.

Honestly, now - that's a matter of interpretation. You're taking a more literal interpretation, but it's perfectly acceptable for others to understand it differently. There's so much speculation and opinion that goes into interpreting a religious text such as the Bible, which is far more poetic than straightforward. There's nearly always a bit of wiggle room in the meanings of passages. I don't subscribe to the entire Bible because, in my heart, I am unable to accept many of the sayings in it, no matter how I look at them (that's a large part of the reason why I am no longer a Christian). Really, I always felt like the Christian idea of Jesus existing in everyone or the Holy Spirit moving through the world, etc. was the same thing as the natural divine energy described by many other religions. The message just got perverted by the human beings who wrote and translated the Bible and corrupted its original intent so that they could control the masses with fear and threats of eternal punishment.

Religion should never be used as a tool of control or fear, but that's the way it's been used for many years, because people (as a whole, not individuals) are unable to exist in a peaceful manner without trying to be better than each other. Whether he was a real historical man-god, a myth, or simply a rabbi who was deified after death in a way he never intended, Jesus's real message as outlined in the Bible is overwhelmingly that we are to love one another and coexist peacefully, and this message is completely overshadowed by different sects of Christianity arguing with each other and trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong. What many of his followers consider to be "righteous" anger or admonishment is nothing but unwanted harrassment that further separates people from each other. All this accomplishes is the opposite of what he intended, and it tends to encourage ignorance of actual facts because many religious people say that too much education makes people feel like they're "too smart for God."

So long as someone follows Christ's message, what's it to you if they do so because a church or a book told them to?

[TheAvengerLever]

Riiiiight...

Yes, since you've switched those sentences around, it makes it look like I'm contradicting myself. If you could...return it to the way it was, it may make a bit more sense.

When I say, "no, I don't believe in predestination" I mean, "NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION."

[wisp]

Riiiiight...

Yes, since you've switched those sentences around, it makes it look like I'm contradicting myself. If you could...return it to the way it was, it may make a bit more sense.

When I say, "no, I don't believe in predestination" I mean, "NO, I DON'T BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION."

Sorry to have to tell you this, but it still looks like you're contradicting yourself no matter how you switch your sentences. "I was destined for this, but I don't believe in predestination"? I've gotta agree with vodkamaru here.

[TheAvengerLever]

MAYBE, I should've used another word besides destined then.

Or maybe, I don't really care whether it looks like I'm contradicting myself or not. Because, I'm going to quote myself on this

No, I'm not into predestination.

[vodkamaru]

The order doesn't matter like Wisp said. You say you were destined to be a Christian (which I think is complete bull) and then you say you don't believe in predestination. That doesn't make any sense. You can't deny that religion is pretty much cultural.

[LionHarted]

God didn't decide what my future is; I did.
He just knows what it is.

[TheAvengerLever]

Saying Christianity is cultural is pretty much the dumbest thing anyone can say. Christianity is not at all cultural.

[Goose]

"No one comes to the Father but by [the way, the truth, and the life]."

i.e., by "Christian" conduct.

No. It plainly means by Jesus Christ.

The thing that unites christians of most denominations is that the truth that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, and through beleivng and accepting him into our lives, we can spend eternity with God in heaven.

It does not mean that if we live a godly life, without Jesus, we get in anyway. You have accept Jesus Christ as your saviour.

Honestly, now - that's a matter of interpretation. You're taking a more literal interpretation, but it's perfectly acceptable for others to understand it differently. There's so much speculation and opinion that goes into interpreting a religious text such as the Bible, which is far more poetic than straightforward. There's nearly always a bit of wiggle room in the meanings of passages. I don't subscribe to the entire Bible because, in my heart, I am unable to accept many of the sayings in it, no matter how I look at them (that's a large part of the reason why I am no longer a Christian). Really, I always felt like the Christian idea of Jesus existing in everyone or the Holy Spirit moving through the world, etc. was the same thing as the natural divine energy described by many other religions. The message just got perverted by the human beings who wrote and translated the Bible and corrupted its original intent so that they could control the masses with fear and threats of eternal punishment.

Religion should never be used as a tool of control or fear, but that's the way it's been used for many years, because people (as a whole, not individuals) are unable to exist in a peaceful manner without trying to be better than each other. Whether he was a real historical man-god, a myth, or simply a rabbi who was deified after death in a way he never intended, Jesus's real message as outlined in the Bible is overwhelmingly that we are to love one another and coexist peacefully, and this message is completely overshadowed by different sects of Christianity arguing with each other and trying to convince everyone else that they are wrong. What many of his followers consider to be "righteous" anger or admonishment is nothing but unwanted harrassment that further separates people from each other. All this accomplishes is the opposite of what he intended, and it tends to encourage ignorance of actual facts because many religious people say that too much education makes people feel like they're "too smart for God."

So long as someone follows Christ's message, what's it to you if they do so because a church or a book told them to?

I"m not discouraging them to live Christs message, if more people did it would be a lot better. What I am saying is that core to the belief systems of Christianity is Jesus Christ. The core thing that christiantiy teaches, before all the morality and love stuff (Which is good in itself. Jesus says to love one another as you love your self is THE MOST IMORTANT COMMAND) , before all of that, is that Jesus died on the cross for your sins and to get to heaven you need to believe in him.

I'm not saying that people who live Godly lives are bad, just that the only way to get into the club is to tell that bouncer Peter (The big burly one) that you accept Jesus into your heart as your savior.

What I wish is that more people who are christian lived christs message through their lives. Thats how it should be.

[vodkamaru]

Saying Christianity is cultural is pretty much the dumbest thing anyone can say. Christianity is not at all cultural.

Yeah, that's it... dumb. I didn't say that just Christianity is cultural, but belief systems in general. That's even dumber, right?

Lets look at some statistics.

The Middle East
Egypt: Muslim (mostly Sunni) 94%, Coptic Christian and other 6%
Pakistan: Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%), Christian, Hindu, and other 3%
Qatar: Muslim 95%
Saudi Arabia: Muslim 100%
Oman: Ibadhi Muslim 75%, Sunni Muslim, Shi'a Muslim, Hindu
Israel: Jewish 80.1%, Muslim 14.6% (mostly Sunni Muslim), Christian 2.1%, other 3.2% (1996 est.)

North America
United States: Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)
Canada: Roman Catholic 42%, Protestant 40%, other 18%
Mexico: nominally Roman Catholic 89%, Protestant 6%, other 5%
Ecuador: Roman Catholic 95%
Panama: Roman Catholic 85%, Protestant 15%
Cuba: nominally 85% Roman Catholic prior to CASTRO assuming power; Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, and Santeria are also represented

Asia
Japan: observe both Shinto and Buddhist 84%, other 16% (including Christian 0.7%)
Korea, South: Christian 49%, Buddhist 47%, Confucianist 3%, Shamanist, Chondogyo (Religion of the Heavenly Way), and other 1%
Macau: Buddhist 50%, Roman Catholic 15%, none and other 35% (1997 est.)
Taiwan: mixture of Buddhist, Confucian, and Taoist 93%, Christian 4.5%, other 2.5%
Bhutan: Lamaistic Buddhist 75%, Indian- and Nepalese-influenced Hinduism 25%
Cambodia: Theravada Buddhist 95%, other 5%

To me, they seemed to be grouped by geographic location. This obviously isn't a full detailed analysis but you can check out the source and see for yourself.

Edited by vodkamaru, 07 August 2007 - 09:34 PM.

[TheAvengerLever]

Yes. Yes it is.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

"It's the only real tool" is a belief, whether correct or not. It is untestable, so we cannot say it is a fact.

It's the only real tool is a fact. You name one other method of finding out the truth that would give good results. Go on. Name one. That there might be another method that we don't know about yet, does nto mean that it isn't the only real tool as of now. That does not stop the statement being a fact, because a fact is something we know. If we don't know about it, how can it be a fact?

The statement is testable. All you have to do is look for an alternate method that would give us better results than the scientific one. Can you find one? Can you? No, I suspect not.

"Logic is the only logical means of reaching conclusions" is circular reasoning.

No one said that. See? You twist words and other people's words, to create strawmen arguments. In science, logic and rationality are tools used with the scientific method. The scientific method is the only real tool to do science with. That it uses logic and rationality is another question altogether.

Saying Christianity is cultural is pretty much the dumbest thing anyone can say. Christianity is not at all cultural.

Now that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Deny it all you want, but Christianity is cultural. If you were born in a Muslim country, chances are, you would be a Muslim, unless your parents were Christian to begin with. You talk with any Muslim and they'll come up with the same arguments you have.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 08 August 2007 - 03:57 AM.

[LionHarted]

It's the only real tool is a fact. You name one other method of finding out the truth that would give good results. Go on. Name one. That there might be another method that we don't know about yet, does nto mean that it isn't the only real tool as of now. That does not stop the statement being a fact, because a fact is something we know. If we don't know about it, how can it be a fact?

The statement is testable. All you have to do is look for an alternate method that would give us better results than the scientific one. Can you find one? Can you? No, I suspect not.

1) "As of now" being the shatterpoint of your statement.
2) Facts are not things that we know; facts are simply things that are true.
3) For the statement to be testable, we would have to round up all methods of problem-solving and observation, even those we haven't created yet.

In the realm of philosophy and the metaphysical, any number of methods for determining how the world might work is acceptable.

"Logic is the only logical means of reaching conclusions" is circular reasoning.

No one said that.
[...]The scientific method is the only real tool to do science with.

Edited by LionHarted, 08 August 2007 - 06:58 AM.

[Oberon Storm]

It's the only real tool is a fact. You name one other method of finding out the truth that would give good results. Go on. Name one. That there might be another method that we don't know about yet, does nto mean that it isn't the only real tool as of now. That does not stop the statement being a fact, because a fact is something we know. If we don't know about it, how can it be a fact?

The statement is testable. All you have to do is look for an alternate method that would give us better results than the scientific one. Can you find one? Can you? No, I suspect not.

1) "As of now" being the shatterpoint of your statement.
2) Facts are not things that we know; facts are simply things that are true.
3) For the statement to be testable, we would have to round up all methods of problem-solving and observation, even those we haven't created yet.

In the realm of philosophy and the metaphysical, any number of methods for determining how the world might work is acceptable.

That isn't a "shatterpoint". If we don't know of it yet we can't test or use it. Right now the scientific method is the only tool we have. That is fact. We have no other tool. And you can't test what you haven't found yet. And I don't know about the relams of philosophy and the metaphysical, but we're talking about the physical.

"Logic is the only logical means of reaching conclusions" is circular reasoning.

No one said that.
[...]The scientific method is the only real tool to do science with.

That statement doesn't say "logic".

[Wolf O'Donnell]

1) "As of now" being the shatterpoint of your statement.
2) Facts are not things that we know; facts are simply things that are true.
3) For the statement to be testable, we would have to round up all methods of problem-solving and observation, even those we haven't created yet.

Once again you're twisting words...

A fact is...
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
i. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
ii. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
iii. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Now, "the scientific method is the only real tool to do science with" is a fact, because it matches 1 and 2. It is the only method to do science with and the only real one. You fail to answer my challenge, of stating what other way you can do science with.

In the realm of philosophy and the metaphysical, any number of methods for determining how the world might work is acceptable.

But we're not talking about philosophy here. We're talking about science. Real science. Hard science. Physics, chemistry, biology and all its intermediates. You were the one that said falsely that science operates on a set of beliefs...

I'm not arguing against science, either, just pointing out that it, too, subscribes to systems of belief to dictate how it ought to view the world, and what it ought to consider valid.

...and that is why we're arguing this point.

Science does not operate on a system of beliefs. It operates on a system of logic and rationality, which dictate how to view the world. Believing has barely anything to do with it. A scientist can say "he believes it is the best way to do it", because he'd sound a complete prick if he said, "I have thought about it carefully and determined logically that the scientific method is the best way to describe the world objectively." Not to mention it's a bloody long mouthful.

"Logic is the only logical means of reaching conclusions" is circular reasoning.

No one said that.
[...]The scientific method is the only real tool to do science with.

Oh dear... oh deary me, it would seem that someone here either isn't being very logical or doesn't know how to read.

"Logic is the only logical means of reaching conclusions" is not the same as "the scientific method is the only real tool to do science with." Do you understand why? Let me take you through this step by step.

Logic is not the scientific method. The scientific method uses logic, but they are not the same thing. Logic is something you use. It is brain function. The scientific method utilises logic to find out the reason for how something behaves or why something is.

Reaching conclusions is also not the same thing as doing science.

If I put your hand on a hot stove, you will jerk it away in pain. You will come to the conclusion that touching a hot stove is a bad thing. Is that doing science? I think not. Doing science would be touching the hot stove, then touching a cold stove, then touching a hot oject, then touching a cold object, to see whether it was the heat or the stove that caused the pain. Then you'd repeat the test several times, over and over, just to make sure that the first time wasn't a fluke.

I repeat myself. Believing in something does not make that something a belief. After all, I believe in people. Is people a belief?

[LionHarted]

And I don't know about the relams of philosophy and the metaphysical, but we're talking about the physical.

I thought we were talking about religion, philosophy, and the metaphysical.

That statement doesn't say "logic".

The scientific method is the method derived from logical observation.

You fail to answer my challenge, of stating what other way you can do science with.

In terms of "knowledge gathering"

) Subjective evaluation of personal experience (case-by-case scenarios)
) Creative, yet informed interpretation/guesswork (historical analysis)
) Emotional evaluation (relationships/wellbeing)

When observing things that may not necessarily be replicable, it tends to be more effective to observe them in a way that does not necessarily fall under the "scientific method". Certain situations are not conducive to being observed under controlled conditions necessary for fulfilling what the method requires.

"I have thought about it carefully and determined logically that the scientific method is the best way to describe the world objectively."

This is the same statement the religious would make about their religions.

You were the one that said falsely that science operates on a set of beliefs...

A set of beliefs about how to view the physical world.

I never said whether or not they were the best way mattered in the slightest.

Reaching conclusions is also not the same thing as doing science.

The simplicity of a conclusion and the process taken to reach it does not suddenly make the conclusion any less procedural.

Edited by LionHarted, 08 August 2007 - 11:13 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

And I don't know about the relams of philosophy and the metaphysical, but we're talking about the physical.

I thought we were talking about religion, philosophy, and the metaphysical.

Yet you were the one who brought science up.

The scientific method is the method derived from logical observation.

A car is derived from bits of metal. So, is metal the best thing to get from A to B?

You fail to answer my challenge, of stating what other way you can do science with.

In terms of "knowledge gathering"

) Subjective evaluation of personal experience (case-by-case scenarios)
) Creative, yet informed interpretation/guesswork (historical analysis)
) Emotional evaluation (relationships/wellbeing)

When observing things that may not necessarily be replicable, it tends to be more effective to observe them in a way that does not necessarily fall under the "scientific method". Certain situations are not conducive to being observed under controlled conditions necessary for fulfilling what the method requires.

Okay. Apply that to Quantum Physics. A subjective evaluation of personal experience would state that things seen in the quantum world are impossible. Two things cannot be in two places at the same time. From the guesswork you've done on your case-by-case scenarios, you would conclude that nothing can be in two places at the same time. Emotional evaluation? Well, what point is that?

Your method is no way to do science. That is why the scientific method is currently the best. It is not a belief. It is a fact.

You were the one that said falsely that science operates on a set of beliefs...

A set of beliefs about how to view the physical world.

Science does not operate on a set of beliefs, as I've told you before. I've defined beliefs and none of the things that science operates on fit the definition of the word, belief. Not a single description of science ever mentions that it operates on beliefs. If it operates on beliefs, it cannot function, because everything must be questioned, a scientist must try every single different method he can to achieve a possible solution and he must prove that method to be true.

Every time a scientist does an experiment, he must prove to the people that reads his reports, that his logic is sound. He must therefore not believe in it. A good scientist must question his own logic. Belief does not allow that.

I never said whether or not they were the best way mattered in the slightest.

That was never the bloody point!

Reaching conclusions is also not the same thing as doing science.

The simplicity of a conclusion and the process taken to reach it does not suddenly make the conclusion any less procedural.

No it doesn't. But it still doesn't change the fact that reaching conclusions is not the same thing as doing science.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, I watched a program yesterday night which talked about dangerous knowledge. Kurt Gödel was one of the people presented in the documentary and his work was very interesting. Basically he used logic to prove that logic cannot prove everything. Alan Turing went on further by stating that you can never know if something is provable or not until you prove it. He came to this conclusion by using computers. If it is unprovable, the computer will stall. It will continue working forever. If it is provable, the computer will eventually come to a conclusion and stop. However, you will never know if the solution is unprovable until the computer stops.

So logic has proved that you can't prove anything until its been proven, thereby undoing itself. Which kinda strengthens my point that scientists cannot take logic for granted and that a belief in logic is fatal to science.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 09 August 2007 - 06:08 AM.

[LionHarted]

Apply that to Quantum Physics. A subjective evaluation of personal experience would state that things seen in the quantum world are impossible.

I'm not applying it to quantum physics.

And you seem to be under the delusion that all scientific process should be applicable in all observational settings.

That is why the scientific method is currently the best. It is not a belief. It is a fact.

A fact is a belief that has been proven (and, according to science, could be disproved later on). That is all.

Science does not operate on a set of beliefs, as I've told you before.
[...]A good scientist must question his own logic. Belief does not allow that.

1) Yes, it does, otherwise it couldn't function in a uniform way, and the human element would be unnecessary.
2) The very statement you put forth is a belief in and of itself about how science should/must work.

No it doesn't. But it still doesn't change the fact that reaching conclusions is not the same thing as doing science.

According to most scientists.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that people can disagree on what is or is not science, just like they can disagree on what is or is not Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.

So logic has proved that you can't prove anything until its been proven, thereby undoing itself. Which kinda strengthens my point that scientists cannot take logic for granted and that a belief in logic is fatal to science.

But they have to believe that it is at least the best way (despite it actually being fallible, like everything else), otherwise they cannot make any headway at all. If you have no faith in anything, you won't believe anything.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 06:24 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I'm not applying it to quantum physics.

And you seem to be under the delusion that all scientific process should be applicable in all observational settings.

Oh for crying out loud, you're really trying my patience. Where the Hell did you get that stupid idea?

Where did I ever say that it should be applicable in all observational settings? We were talking about science! Science! Physics, chemistry, biology etc. Do you understand what science is, because you make me doubt you do. You brought up the issue of science and belief. We were talking about science and belief. But you are trying to steer the conversation away to all observational settings yourself. You are the one who brings these things up. I am the one who keeps arguing against them.

That is why the scientific method is currently the best. It is not a belief. It is a fact.

A fact is a belief that has been proven (and, according to science, could be disproved later on). That is all.

A fact is a concept that has been proven, not a belief. One does not have to believe in something for it to be a fact. Take the Creationists for example. They don't believe in many facts, despite them being real facts, to be proven to be true (to an extent).

Science does not operate on a set of beliefs, as I've told you before.
[...]A good scientist must question his own logic. Belief does not allow that.

1) Yes, it does, otherwise it couldn't function in a uniform way, and the human element would be unnecessary.
2) The very statement you put forth is a belief in and of itself about how science should/must work.

It is not a belief. It is how science works.

When a scientist submits his work to peer review, he must prove that his logic is correct. In doing so, a good scientist must question his own logic and see if there any flaws. A belief that his logic is correct will lead to complacency. He must not believe in it, otherwise he will not be able to critically evaluate it. If it has not been critically evaluated, when it is submitted to peer review, his peers wil see it has not been critically evaluated and will tear it to pieces, and reject it.

The very process of having scientific work submitted for publication requires scepticism of one's own logic.

No it doesn't. But it still doesn't change the fact that reaching conclusions is not the same thing as doing science.

According to most scientists.

No, its self evident, especially from the example I gave you. When I come to a conclusion about you and your knowledge of science, that is not doing science. And this brings me on to a former point.

If I realise that coming to conclusions is not the same thing as doing science, how am I advocating that the scientific process must be applied to all observational settings, exactly? Surely, if, for example, my example above is not doing science, then surely applying scientific processes to it cannot be done because applying a scientific process to it would be doing science? Do you even realise how nonsensical you're sounding?

You know, I'm beginning to think you're getting very confused.

So logic has proved that you can't prove anything until its been proven, thereby undoing itself. Which kinda strengthens my point that scientists cannot take logic for granted and that a belief in logic is fatal to science.

But they have to believe that it is at least the best way (despite it actually being fallible, like everything else), otherwise they cannot make any headway at all. If you have no faith in anything, you won't believe anything.

Oh, now you're using the word, faith! That's even worse! That word shouldn't appear when discussing science on its own. I'll admit that Cantor at least believed in his logic and that it would lead him to something perfect, but look where it led him. He went mad and died alone in an insane asylum, all because of his faith in logic, which proved simultaneously that his theory was correct and not correct.

Gödel himself suffered from at least two occassions of nervous breakdown due to his belief in logic's ability to solve problems. The latter might have had something to do with the fact that he tried to complete Cantor's work.

Belief in logic and science is dangerous.

[LionHarted]

Science! Physics, chemistry, biology etc. Do you understand what science is, because you make me doubt you do.

The origins of the word are found in a word meaning, literally, "knowledge". Loosely, science is a study of the world, in an attempt to contrive "knowledge" about it.

Organized science operates under certain "acceptable" tenets. Science's "dogmas", so-to-speak.

A fact is a concept that has been proven, not a belief.

A concept that is believed in, proven or not, is a belief.

It is not a belief. It is how science works.

It is belief, faith in certain ideas, that dictate how science should work.

In doing so, a good scientist must question his own logic and see if there any flaws. A belief that his logic is correct will lead to complacency. He must not believe in it, otherwise he will not be able to critically evaluate it. If it has not been critically evaluated, when it is submitted to peer review, his peers wil see it has not been critically evaluated and will tear it to pieces, and reject it.

I understand this very well.

Of course, the same happens with most/all religious study/commentary, but why in the world would that matter?

When I come to a conclusion about you and your knowledge of science, that is not doing science.

Which is your belief, again and again. Others might disagree, but no, your opinion is the only one that matters, apparently. Yours and the bloody "scientific community." Your doctrines on what is and is not science are obviously the only correct ones.

Until you understand that this is equally dogmatic as many religions, I have no reason to continue this discussion.

Belief in logic and science is dangerous.

Then they ought be discontinued, eh?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

The origins of the word are found in a word meaning, literally, "knowledge". Loosely, science is a study of the world, in an attempt to contrive "knowledge" about it.

Organized science operates under certain "acceptable" tenets. Science's "dogmas", so-to-speak.

Except they're not dogmas. Your inability to grasp the fact that science is not religion is really testing my patience.

A fact is a concept that has been proven, not a belief.

A concept that is believed in, proven or not, is a belief.

I believe in people. So people is a belief? I believe in a car. So a car is a belief? Don't talk complete rubbish.

It is not a belief. It is how science works.

It is belief, faith in certain ideas, that dictate how science should work.

Faith should never ever be used when describing science, because faith has no place in science. Belief has no place in science.

In doing so, a good scientist must question his own logic and see if there any flaws. A belief that his logic is correct will lead to complacency. He must not believe in it, otherwise he will not be able to critically evaluate it. If it has not been critically evaluated, when it is submitted to peer review, his peers wil see it has not been critically evaluated and will tear it to pieces, and reject it.

I understand this very well.

Of course, the same happens with most/all religious study/commentary, but why in the world would that matter?

Science takes it much farther than religion ever would, because it can use empirical evidence to back it up.

When I come to a conclusion about you and your knowledge of science, that is not doing science.

Which is your belief, again and again. Others might disagree, but no, your opinion is the only one that matters, apparently. Yours and the bloody "scientific community." Your doctrines on what is and is not science are obviously the only correct ones.

Until you understand that this is equally dogmatic as many religions, I have no reason to continue this discussion.

Any fool can see that coming to conclusions is not the same as doing science, except for you, it would appear. When I come to a potentially flawed conclusion that you're a complete idiot based on what you've said for the past few posts, does that mean I'm doing science? Does it? If so, then perhaps history is a science, perhaps English literature is a science, perhaps adding one plus two is a science.

The fact that you continue to describe science in religious terminology displays your complete ignorance of how science is nothing like religion and how science works. I give you not beliefs, but actual facts and try to prove them to be true. You however, merely debate semantics and insist on something being true without backing a statement up.

Science has dogma? Don't make me laugh. If one thing is true, science, good science, does not have dogma.

[LionHarted]

Except they're not dogmas.

Oh, that's right. Science doesn't have those.

I believe in people. So people is a belief? I believe in a car. So a car is a belief? Don't talk complete rubbish.

People are things. Cars are things. You can believe they exist or believe they not exist.

Faith should never ever be used when describing science, because faith has no place in science. Belief has no place in science.

Both of these are your views on science, and your views on what faith and belief are, and how they do [not] apply to science. But, le gasp, saying that one group is exempt from the rules it applies to others (i.e., faith in tradition/rules/authority/ideas/etc.) is, le gasp, the fallacy of relativism!

Personally, I would say that following any sort of rulebook constitutes a display of faith in those rules. This goes for religion, science, and law.

Science takes it much farther than religion ever would, because it can use empirical evidence to back it up.

Science examines empirical evidence. Naturally it would use empirical evidence.
Religion examines the supernatural. Naturally, as long as supernatural things happen, religion has a lot to work with, too.

Any fool

I stopped reading here, since your argument just descended into fallacy.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 08:47 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

[quote name='LionHarted' post='352849' date='Aug 9 2007, 02:36 PM'][quote]I believe in people. So people is a belief? I believe in a car. So a car is a belief? Don't talk complete rubbish.[/quote]People are things. Cars are things. You can believe they exist or believe they not exist.[/quote]

So you admit you're wrong. Good.

[quoet][quote]Faith should never ever be used when describing science, because faith has no place in science. Belief has no place in science.[/quote]Both of these are your views on science, and your views on what faith and belief are, and how they do [not] apply to science. But, le gasp, saying that one group is exempt from the rules it applies to others is, le gasp, the fallacy of relativism![/quote]

Says the person who commits countless other logical fallacies, and fails to back up his claims.

[quote]Personally, I would say that following any sort of rulebook constitutes a display of faith in those rules. This goes for religion, science, and law.[/quote]But that is not saying that the rules themselves constitute a belief system.

[quote][quote]Any fool[/quote]

I stopped reading here, since your argument just descended into fallacy.
[/quote]

Fallacy? Says the person who can't tell the difference between reaching conclusions and science, says the person who fails to prove his point with logic. You were the one who said those things. If any fallacy is present, it is because of your posts. Time and time again, you prove you do not know a thing about how science works with its peer review system, with its need to shove belief aside. You keep stating it is my viewpoint, but it is not just a viewpoint. It is reality.

Science is based on scepticism and a lack of belief. This has been instilled into me by numerous scientists that I have met, that I have been taught by. It cannot be stressed enough.

But yet you insist on stating that science is like some kind of religion, that it operates on its own belief systems. Science does not operate on belief. It operates on logic and on rationality. If someone believes in that, it is irrelevant. It still does not make it a belief system. This was your original point, this is the original point I argued against, yet you still don't see why it is true. You are delusional and obsessed with belief.

[LionHarted]

So you admit you're wrong. Good.

No, I admit you misinterpreted what I said. Now you're just misrepresenting what I said.

Says the person who commits countless other logical fallacies, and fails to back up his claims.

Lalala. That's all I'm hearing from you; "you are being illogical." How? Which fallacy am I committing? Which unfounded claim am I making?

Fallacy? Says the person who can't tell the difference between reaching conclusions and science

You, sir, do not get to define what other people view as "science".

You keep stating it is my viewpoint, but it is not just a viewpoint. It is reality.

Which is, again, your belief.

Dogmatic and all, even. But you refuse to at least admit this.

But yet you insist on stating that science is like some kind of religion, that it operates on its own belief systems.

Science does not operate under any sort of beliefs about how to view the world? How experiments ought to be conducted? What evidence is or is not valid? How is it, then, that it is organized at all?

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 09:41 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

So you admit you're wrong. Good.

No, I admit you misinterpreted what I said. Now you're just misrepresenting what I said.

Oh and how is that?

Says the person who commits countless other logical fallacies, and fails to back up his claims.

Lalala. That's all I'm hearing from you;

Ha! You're one to talk. That's all I'm hearing from you!

"you are being illogical." How? Which fallacy am I committing? Which unfounded claim am I making?

The fallacy of equating two unrelated things, which I shall now address below.

Fallacy? Says the person who can't tell the difference between reaching conclusions and science

You, sir, do not get to define what other people view as "science".

You sir do not even understand the fallacy you're committing. By the definition you made, everything is science. You were the one that said reaching conclusions and doing science are one and the same thing. Yet they can't be, because if they were, I'd be doing science everytime I reached a conclusion about someone's personality or doing science everytime I reach a conclusion about what things taste horrible and what things don't.

You keep stating it is my viewpoint, but it is not just a viewpoint. It is reality.

Which is, again, your belief.

Dogmatic and all, even. But you refuse to at least admit this.

Dogma is something that does not change, even in response to evidence to the contrary. However, you have provided no evidence to the contrary. How can you tell my viewpoint is dogma, a religious word that has no bearing on science, if you do not provide evidence to suppor the contrary?

But yet you insist on stating that science is like some kind of religion, that it operates on its own belief systems.

Science does not operate under any sort of beliefs about how to view the world? How experiments ought to be conducted? What evidence is or is not valid? How is it, then, that it is organized at all?

How experiments ought to be conducted are not beliefs. Your definition of beliefs is too broad, as I tried to argue before. Under your definition, everything is a belief. Driving is a belief. Flying an aeroplane is a belief. That is just ridiculous.

Science by definition does not act on beliefs. When a scientist tries to find out something, he comes up with a null hypothesis. That's the opposite of what he's trying to find out. He then tries to prove that true. In effect, he's trying to prove the opposite of what he believes. He is trying to disprove his own belief. When he comes up with evidence, he does not believe it and therefore does more experiments to see whether it is true or not. He cannot believe it is true. He cannot believe his method is perfect, so he therefore does another method.

Does that speak of belief to you? It doesn't to me.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 09 August 2007 - 09:55 AM.

[LionHarted]

By the definition you made, everything is science. You were the one that said reaching conclusions and doing science are one and the same thing. Yet they can't be, because if they were, I'd be doing science everytime I reached a conclusion about someone's personality or doing science everytime I reach a conclusion about what things taste horrible and what things don't.

From some points of view, you would be doing science, in the loosest sense, every time you make an educated observation and reach a conclusion about it.

Your failure to accept these other points of view as remotely valid is what makes yours a dogmatic one.

How experiments ought to be conducted are not beliefs.

Yes, they are.

Under your definition, everything is a belief. Driving is a belief. Flying an aeroplane is a belief. That is just ridiculous.

Straw men tend to be ridiculous.

Science by my definition does not act on beliefs (by my definition).

Fixed.

Scientists have to believe that science is a good mode for determining fact (whether it is true or not is irrelevant; they still have to believe it, and could choose not to) in order to be scientists.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 10:07 AM.

[Hero of Legend]

Scientists have to believe that science is a good mode for determining fact (whether it is true or not is irrelevant; they still have to believe it, and could choose not to) in order to be scientists.

You, sir, do not get to define what other people view as "belief".

Fixed.

Oh, and I'm laughing my ass of at this. Keep it up, Wolf.

[LionHarted]

I'm aware that he doesn't agree with me.
I'm also aware that that doesn't necessarily make me right, which is something that he doesn't seem to have grasped for himself.

Which, of course, is why this argument is hilarious.

Edited by LionHarted, 09 August 2007 - 10:23 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

By the definition you made, everything is science. You were the one that said reaching conclusions and doing science are one and the same thing. Yet they can't be, because if they were, I'd be doing science everytime I reached a conclusion about someone's personality or doing science everytime I reach a conclusion about what things taste horrible and what things don't.

From some points of view, you would be doing science, in the loosest sense, every time you make an educated observation and reach a conclusion about it.

Your failure to accept these other points of view as remotely valid is what makes yours a dogmatic one.

Says the person who fails to accept the other point of view, which, I might add, makes a damned sight bit more sense than yours.
Words, right, are supposed to have definitions. Science has one. "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Coming to a conclusion does not necessarily involve experimental investigation or description. It does not necessarily fit the definition. If it doesn't have to fit the description, then they can't be the same thing, which is what you stated.

All grass is green. Are therefore all green things grass?

Using your loosest definition logic, the answer would be yes.

How experiments ought to be conducted are not beliefs.

Yes, they are.

Under your definition, everything is a belief. Driving is a belief. Flying an aeroplane is a belief. That is just ridiculous.

Straw men tend to be ridiculous.

How is it a strawman? It is applying your logic to others things to disprove your logic.

Let me put it another way. I bake a cake. To bake a cake, I need to use an oven. To do science, I must use certain scientific methods. To use an oven, I must operate it in a certain way. To use certain scientific methods, I ought to conduct them in a certain way. So, according to your logic, right... using an oven is a belief.

Your definition of belief must be different from mine, because I don't belive that using an oven is a belief.

Tell me, what is your definition of a belief?

Science by my definition does not act on beliefs (by my definition).

Fixed.

I don't twist your words. Yet you seem to love twisting mine. I must aks you kindly to stop it.

Scientists have to believe that science is a good mode for determining fact (whether it is true or not is irrelevant; they still have to believe it, and could choose not to) in order to be scientists.

That still does not mean that science is based on belief. Believing in something does not make it a belief. Why can't you understand this?