@jamie_c said:
I don't mind talking religion or politics personally, but it does seem to inflame so many people. // If they were more general topics of discussion people would not get so inflamed so quickly.
Yeah, that's kind of my point, the act of stymieing these kinds of conversations is the very thing that makes them awkward, tense and unfamiliar terrain to a lot people - and the fact they can be awkward, tense and unfamiliar terrain to a lot people is what prompts those people to stymie them. As I say above I liken it to the way that the very act of censorship towards swearing is the very thing that gives swearing its power.
@jamie_c said:
In my experience though, both topics can bring up a lot of passion from people who believe one way or another and this passion often leads to attacks instead of level headed discussion.
Yep, this undoubtedly happens, but I'd blame a lot of it on misunderstanding, and I'd blame the misunderstanding on a lack of communication, and I'd blame the lack of communication on the cultural norm that says you shouldn't speak about these kinds of things.
And when I say 'lack of communication' I don't mean that if people were just allowed to speak openly and honestly the conversational conflict would disappear, I'm mean the historical lack of communication, generation after generation growing up with the idea that you just don't mention these things in polite company, so you have generations of people with little or no understanding of people who hold completely different beliefs to their own.
I also blame Flappy Bird, not sure why, I just thought I'd through him in.
@LumpApps said:
It's not that I am not interested. I struggle with believe every day.
You shouldn't struggle, it's not as hard as it looks, just take the 'believe' you used, chop off the 'v' and the 'e' from the end and use an 'f' instead.
The real problem with religious conversation is that it's focused on a topic that people feel very strongly about, yet there is no evidence/proof/etc for. What I mean by that is: debates cannot possibly go anywhere when all points can be defeated by "well, it's faith and that's what I believe". This would be okay if others in the conversation accepted that, but that's rarely the case.
Other topics are either grounded in more concrete terms OR we universally accept the topic as one of personal opinion. Some of you mentioned talking about religion as if it was music, food, cars, etc. In THOSE conversations, everyone agrees that there is a level of subjectivity that may trump other points, and that's okay. In religious debates, neither side seems to accept that. And because religious views are pretty much purely subjective, you can see why they always turn out the way they do...
@FallacyStudios said:
Sorry to hijack it for a moment, but I'm going to go back to the theological debate here for a moment. If you have a questions or response to what I say, I ask that you PM me. Not that I have an issue discussing it in this thread, but I'd rather this be my only contribution to straying this thread from it's purpose.
No, let's go public ! That's the whole thrust of my point here, people have to learn to discuss these things calmly in public, otherwise it remains this awkward "OMG he mentioned religion ! OMG, ban him, call the police" situation
@FallacyStudios said:
[Roman Catholic church] purposely took many verses out of context to support wealth schemes such as purgatory. They added extra books to their bible.
The first real IAP scheme.
@FallacyStudios said:
POLYGAMe Hey man I believe in science and logic too. Funny thing to keep in mind though, science can't be used to prove everything. It's funny that you mention those two because actually science can't prove logic. Interestingly enough, the scientific method can't even prove the scientific method. Just an interesting tid bit. Science and logic are great tools and that's all.
Science doesn't set out to 'prove everything', it is simply the systematic study of the physical world. I'd say statements like 'science can't prove logic' and 'the scientific method can't even prove the scientific method' are meaningless in all kinds of ways, you could apply the same reasoning to anything, cars can't prove cars, the universe can't prove the universe, the Bible can't prove the Bible, hydrogen can't prove hydrogen -and so on.
@FallacyStudios said:
Socks Yea you are right. People do blow up over this easily, but I'm not sure moving it into everyday conversation will make an impact on making it more comfortable.
Like I say above, I'm not talking about suddenly bringing it up at a diner party next week, the idea of religion being openly discussed might a multi-generational thing, maybe my grandchildren would be able to discuss, challenge (and learn from) someone's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) without other people rushing in to the 'rescue' and shutting the door closed on the subject. Although, what is probably more insidious than others frowning on (and often intervening) in conversations between consenting adults is the self-censorship that all this has bred.
Last paragraph / attempt to bring it back on topic / erm . . . . . . Fruit Ninja or Angry Birds . . . WWJP ?
Ephesians 4:28 "Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need."
Theft Act UK 1968 "A person convicted of theft on indictment is liable to imprisonment to a term not exceeding seven years."
Yea I get what you mean. I'm just saying I'd rather not hijack a thread that has nothing to do with it to discuss it. If there was a thread set up for this purpose there is no issue discussing it.
Lol
I agree with the first point. The scientific method's inability to prove logic isn't the same as a car proving a car, but I see that those examples were referencing the second. The reason for pointing out the second is because it is claimed that the scientific method can prove something to be true, where as it can, it can't always. I'm really just pointing this out for the growing group of people that claim everything is proven by science and if it can't be proven by science it doesn't exist. Anyone that can grasp the concept that science can't prove everything would of course find the 'scientific method can't prove the scientific method' as an absurd point. However, those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum.
I get what you mean. I have no issue discussing it. I myself see no reason it needs to be uncomfortable or even turn into an argument. I'm just pointing out, this isn't the topic of the thread. Only reason I said anything was because I saw numerous misconceptions by a few different people and it was just easier to address all at once.
tenrdrmerMember, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-ChefPosts: 9,934
Ok ok ok. Let's get back to how Mateen is tool.
Let the religion talk have a rest. I know I partook as well and I probably shouldn't have but this has gotten so far off course it's pointless even staying open if we cannot get back to the topic at hand
@FallacyStudios said:
Yea I get what you mean. I'm just saying I'd rather not hijack a thread that has nothing to do with it to discuss it.
Good flappy point.
I agree with the first point. The scientific method's inability to prove logic isn't the same as a car proving a car.
It is . . . . In the respect that a car doesn't set out to prove a car, its function is to move people around, same deal with the scientific method's inability to prove logic, science doesn't set out to prove logic, you may as well say the scientific method doesn't prove cooking (actually it might prove that, lol).
The other obvious issue here is the definition of 'prove', unless you state your terms it's a kind of nebulous statement.
@FallacyStudios said:
The reason for pointing out the second is because it is claimed that the scientific method can prove something to be true . . . .
Who claims this ? And who is this voice speaking for the scientific method ? And what do they mean by the phrase 'true' ?
@FallacyStudios said:
I'm really just pointing this out for the growing group of people that claim everything is proven by science and if it can't be proven by science it doesn't exist.
Same deal, who are these people and can you point me to an example of them saying that 'everything is proven by science' ? Or that this group is growing ? I'm genuinely curious.
@FallacyStudios said:
Anyone that can grasp the concept that science can't prove everything would of course find the 'scientific method can't prove the scientific method' as an absurd point. However, those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum.
I can't imagine that there are any people versed in even the basics of the scientific method that believe science can prove everything, but if you say there are, and this group is growing, then I'll happily take your word that they exist and I'd love to take a look at who these people are - do you have a link to anything - I don't need to see anything particularly exhaustive, I'd just be happy to see the information you yourself have seen that has informed your opinion that this group exist and they are growing.
If it turns out this group exist, and they are a substantial group in size, perhaps tens of thousands, or even millions, or maybe everyone on the planet, it still makes no comment on the scientific method, just people's opinion on it - what we've done is move from questioning the scientific method to questioning people who proffer views on the scientific method - two entirely different things best kept apart.
We may as well say that those who claim in maths that 14 + 14 = 15 have a conundrum, sure they do, but their opinion has no impact on the validity of maths.
@FallacyStudios said:
However, those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum.
Or put more simply "those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum", yes agreed (although by definition these people are not scientists), but the people who believe that apples are laid by ducks also have a conundrum.
@FallacyStudios said:
I get what you mean. I have no issue discussing it. I myself see no reason it needs to be uncomfortable or even turn into an argument. I'm just pointing out, this isn't the topic of the thread.
Comments
Freaking Mateen needs some Old Testament right about now.
Yeah, that's kind of my point, the act of stymieing these kinds of conversations is the very thing that makes them awkward, tense and unfamiliar terrain to a lot people - and the fact they can be awkward, tense and unfamiliar terrain to a lot people is what prompts those people to stymie them. As I say above I liken it to the way that the very act of censorship towards swearing is the very thing that gives swearing its power.
Yep, this undoubtedly happens, but I'd blame a lot of it on misunderstanding, and I'd blame the misunderstanding on a lack of communication, and I'd blame the lack of communication on the cultural norm that says you shouldn't speak about these kinds of things.
And when I say 'lack of communication' I don't mean that if people were just allowed to speak openly and honestly the conversational conflict would disappear, I'm mean the historical lack of communication, generation after generation growing up with the idea that you just don't mention these things in polite company, so you have generations of people with little or no understanding of people who hold completely different beliefs to their own.
I also blame Flappy Bird, not sure why, I just thought I'd through him in.
You shouldn't struggle, it's not as hard as it looks, just take the 'believe' you used, chop off the 'v' and the 'e' from the end and use an 'f' instead.
The real problem with religious conversation is that it's focused on a topic that people feel very strongly about, yet there is no evidence/proof/etc for. What I mean by that is: debates cannot possibly go anywhere when all points can be defeated by "well, it's faith and that's what I believe". This would be okay if others in the conversation accepted that, but that's rarely the case.
Other topics are either grounded in more concrete terms OR we universally accept the topic as one of personal opinion. Some of you mentioned talking about religion as if it was music, food, cars, etc. In THOSE conversations, everyone agrees that there is a level of subjectivity that may trump other points, and that's okay. In religious debates, neither side seems to accept that. And because religious views are pretty much purely subjective, you can see why they always turn out the way they do...
No, let's go public !
That's the whole thrust of my point here, people have to learn to discuss these things calmly in public, otherwise it remains this awkward "OMG he mentioned religion ! OMG, ban him, call the police" situation 
The first real IAP scheme.
Science doesn't set out to 'prove everything', it is simply the systematic study of the physical world. I'd say statements like 'science can't prove logic' and 'the scientific method can't even prove the scientific method' are meaningless in all kinds of ways, you could apply the same reasoning to anything, cars can't prove cars, the universe can't prove the universe, the Bible can't prove the Bible, hydrogen can't prove hydrogen -and so on.
Like I say above, I'm not talking about suddenly bringing it up at a diner party next week, the idea of religion being openly discussed might a multi-generational thing, maybe my grandchildren would be able to discuss, challenge (and learn from) someone's beliefs (or lack of beliefs) without other people rushing in to the 'rescue' and shutting the door closed on the subject. Although, what is probably more insidious than others frowning on (and often intervening) in conversations between consenting adults is the self-censorship that all this has bred.
Last paragraph / attempt to bring it back on topic / erm . . . . . . Fruit Ninja or Angry Birds . . . WWJP ?
Proverbs 16:28
"A dishonest man spreads strife"
Ephesians 4:28
"Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need."
Theft Act UK 1968
"A person convicted of theft on indictment is liable to imprisonment to a term not exceeding seven years."
LOL
Yea I get what you mean. I'm just saying I'd rather not hijack a thread that has nothing to do with it to discuss it. If there was a thread set up for this purpose there is no issue discussing it.
Lol
I agree with the first point. The scientific method's inability to prove logic isn't the same as a car proving a car, but I see that those examples were referencing the second. The reason for pointing out the second is because it is claimed that the scientific method can prove something to be true, where as it can, it can't always. I'm really just pointing this out for the growing group of people that claim everything is proven by science and if it can't be proven by science it doesn't exist. Anyone that can grasp the concept that science can't prove everything would of course find the 'scientific method can't prove the scientific method' as an absurd point. However, those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum.
I get what you mean. I have no issue discussing it. I myself see no reason it needs to be uncomfortable or even turn into an argument. I'm just pointing out, this isn't the topic of the thread. Only reason I said anything was because I saw numerous misconceptions by a few different people and it was just easier to address all at once.
Ok ok ok. Let's get back to how Mateen is tool.
Let the religion talk have a rest. I know I partook as well and I probably shouldn't have but this has gotten so far off course it's pointless even staying open if we cannot get back to the topic at hand
LOL, too funny.
If were lucky maybe Mateen's "SUPER PROMOTOR" will come in here and tell us how he made "GOD" famous.
Good flappy point.
It is
. . . . In the respect that a car doesn't set out to prove a car, its function is to move people around, same deal with the scientific method's inability to prove logic, science doesn't set out to prove logic, you may as well say the scientific method doesn't prove cooking (actually it might prove that, lol).
The other obvious issue here is the definition of 'prove', unless you state your terms it's a kind of nebulous statement.
Who claims this ? And who is this voice speaking for the scientific method ? And what do they mean by the phrase 'true' ?
Same deal, who are these people and can you point me to an example of them saying that 'everything is proven by science' ? Or that this group is growing ? I'm genuinely curious.
I can't imagine that there are any people versed in even the basics of the scientific method that believe science can prove everything, but if you say there are, and this group is growing, then I'll happily take your word that they exist and I'd love to take a look at who these people are - do you have a link to anything - I don't need to see anything particularly exhaustive, I'd just be happy to see the information you yourself have seen that has informed your opinion that this group exist and they are growing.
If it turns out this group exist, and they are a substantial group in size, perhaps tens of thousands, or even millions, or maybe everyone on the planet, it still makes no comment on the scientific method, just people's opinion on it - what we've done is move from questioning the scientific method to questioning people who proffer views on the scientific method - two entirely different things best kept apart.
We may as well say that those who claim in maths that 14 + 14 = 15 have a conundrum, sure they do, but their opinion has no impact on the validity of maths.
Or put more simply "those that do believe science can prove everything have a conundrum", yes agreed (although by definition these people are not scientists), but the people who believe that apples are laid by ducks also have a conundrum.
Is it now !
lol.