| Author |
 Share Topic  Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Deadaim 
[qM]
![[qM]](/images/clanstars.gif "[qM]")
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
 Post Options
 Quote  Reply
 Topic: Watch and Discuss...
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 3:03pm |
Originally posted by F.u.k-shaker
Originally posted by Deadaim
one funny thing ive noticed is.. when i disagreed with islam in a post months ago i was berated by a bunch of you, called ignorant and racist (lol?) and yet you can all say whatever you want about christianity and its just a discussion..
just a thought.. |
"Headshot" I will answer that, cos i feel guilty!
Thats me in a nutshell, i defend when i feel its Racism ( Maybe it wasnt ment so, and i interpred wrong).
Christianity has a bunch of different set off followers... Smiths, Jehova,Mormons and so forth! Even they disagree on the content of The holy book.
That do not mean they are ignorant nor racist! They just have iterpred it different.
I honestly can say i believe in "God" But what that means i have no idea.. This is the reason why i ask questions, I simply cant take it on fate...
And i do not mean to disrespect any religions or beliefs system!
I just throw some cool new light over the hole mess... So that others may get some answers too..
PS: I asked my Grandmother the other day about the second comming... What does god or jesus ride in the heavens..... She answered -Rocketships of course!!!???
No harm no foul Deadaim. |
yea islam has many factions as well.. shiites and sunnis off the top of my head. anyhow no harm no foul.. i am certaintly not trying to bring back up the arguement. i just think its different we could discuss religion all day and you could hate everything about christianity and i wouldnt think you were ignorant or racist for it, not everyone has to believe
|
|
|
 |
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 3:02pm |
Originally posted by Fluffy Fluffington
Originally posted by Deadaim
one funny thing ive noticed is.. when i disagreed with islam in a post months ago i was berated by a bunch of you, called ignorant and racist (lol?) and yet you can all say whatever you want about christianity and its just a discussion..
just a thought.. |
Thats not quite true.
You attacked Islam as a Chiristian, implicitcly claiming the superiority of your creed over another.
The debate here is non-believer vs Believer, whether that belidef is Islam Judaism or Chiristianity.
Sure the debat here has focused on christianity but that becasue most of the belivers in this debate are christian. The non believers are NOT singling out any specific religion.
If youre a non believer you dont believe in any religion. |
thats not true at all, my arguement with islam had nothing to do with christianity. infact my arguements i made against islam could be used against religion in general.
and this debate has strictly been based on christianity, with multiple references to christians, the bible, and the history of christianity.
my arguement with islam had nothing to do with religion vs religion.. it was a human rights issue.
as far as christianity vs islam, christianity is considered a cult by many, and if it stipulated things that could be used against others like islam did i certaintly wouldnt be christian and i would bash it just the same. where it does have a code where if you dont follow certain morals etc you will be cast to hell or considered a sinner.. it doesnt have anything in it that takes away many basic human rights and uses its self to shield them. it also doesnt tell people to kill non believers. my arguement was about fatwas and sharia law. and also christianity isnt part of government in any country, where as islam is part of how countries are governed.. therefor if you can somehow speak out against christianity that doesnt force its self upon anyone.. how come their is noone speaking out about a religion that is law in many countries?
|
|
|
|
TuNA FISh
Team QnL
QnL Captain
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Bham, Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2994
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:56pm |
Originally posted by Deadaim
Originally posted by TuNA FISh
Originally posted by Deadaim
from wiki-
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[35] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[36] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[36]
Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[37] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[37] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[37]
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"[38].
Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[39] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[40]
Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a holistic manner.[41] David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[42] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[43] |
this is kinda funny.. i can go on wiki and look up pages exactly like this telling you religion is fake haha. i could also look up elves and dwarves too.
did you know that early philosophers were the first scientists? |
isnt that exactly what youve already been doing? btw.. dwarves exist...
if philosphers are indeed scientist.. by your logic what i just posted is undeniable facts..
i could go on, but really.. my wikipedia post is all that needs to be said,
i will say you and trendy act as if science is your religion.. but yet act as if its held to a higher regard then religion.. its unquestionable and pure fact. how much would you hate a christian that acted as if religion wasnt a belief but pure fact.. well turn the table around thats how i am feeling about you.
anyhow like i said, re-read the wikipedia post.. oh btw that was under the "SCIENCE" wikipedia post, therefor its pure fact.
|
actually i haven't used any information from wiki yet in the debate besides a quote from Einstein.
i know dwarves exist, but you know what i meant. c'mon now, we've all seen lord of the rings.
i thought i made it clear when i said early philosophers such as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle lol
you are so sarcastic :O
|
|
The sun was high and so was I
- Best Coast
psn: HardhatTuna
XBL: Tuna is QnL
|
|
Fluffy Fluffington
Team Deep
The Fluffer
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Location: USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2065
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:53pm |
Originally posted by Deadaim
one funny thing ive noticed is.. when i disagreed with islam in a post months ago i was berated by a bunch of you, called ignorant and racist (lol?) and yet you can all say whatever you want about christianity and its just a discussion..
just a thought.. |
Thats not quite true.
You attacked Islam as a Chiristian, implicitcly claiming the superiority of your creed over another.
The debate here is non-believer vs Believer, whether that belidef is Islam Judaism or Chiristianity.
Sure the debat here has focused on christianity but that becasue most of the belivers in this debate are christian. The non believers are NOT singling out any specific religion.
If youre a non believer you dont believe in any religion.
|
|
|
|
F.u.k-shaker
Godlike Member
raptor pilot
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Location: Norge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1160
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:51pm |
Originally posted by Deadaim
one funny thing ive noticed is.. when i disagreed with islam in a post months ago i was berated by a bunch of you, called ignorant and racist (lol?) and yet you can all say whatever you want about christianity and its just a discussion..
just a thought.. |
"Headshot" I will answer that, cos i feel guilty!
Thats me in a nutshell, i defend when i feel its Racism ( Maybe it wasnt ment so, and i interpred wrong).
Christianity has a bunch of different set off followers... Smiths, Jehova,Mormons and so forth! Even they disagree on the content of The holy book.
That do not mean they are ignorant nor racist! They just have iterpred it different.
I honestly can say i believe in "God" But what that means i have no idea.. This is the reason why i ask questions, I simply cant take it on fate...
And i do not mean to disrespect any religions or beliefs system!
I just throw some cool new light over the hole mess... So that others may get some answers too..
PS: I asked my Grandmother the other day about the second comming... What does god or jesus ride in the heavens..... She answered -Rocketships of course!!!???
No harm no foul Deadaim.
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:38pm |
one funny thing ive noticed is.. when i disagreed with islam in a post months ago i was berated by a bunch of you, called ignorant and racist (lol?) and yet you can all say whatever you want about christianity and its just a discussion..
just a thought..
|
|
|
|
F.u.k-shaker
Godlike Member
raptor pilot
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Location: Norge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1160
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:28pm |
What if all our HI tech stuff (Nasa/Esa etc) was given too us by "aliens" that was humans in a future world... So they are not really Aliens, but human time travellers.
Or Aliens/Flying spaceships are real... Say goodbye to religions as we learned it.
A funny other thing is: All in the science community say that the paintings and so forth made by our earlier humans is iterpred wrong. They did not understand what they saw... That is really funny! Cos i dont see how they could describe it then, in text! The mana machine for example!! They survived for years in the desert cos of the mana machine.
Someone gave the machine to them, just to survive.. Awesome stuff.
In a museum in Cusco ( if i remember correctly) they have a clay elephant that are very old... Did elephants live in southern america?
Im not trying to step on toes here but there are all to many questions for me, I simply cant take all in faith..
Off course i want to believe in god, but for me the question is who/what/where is god.
Also funny stuff is the hole "apple thing in eden".... It clearly states that even if they had a choise in the choosing, they couldnt choose!
I have a Bible from 1902 in that book i will find apokryfene... In my new one its taken out! Why?
Who decide what when where...
I could go on forever with oxymorons and contradictions...
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:23pm |
Originally posted by TuNA FISh
Originally posted by Deadaim
from wiki-
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[35] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[36] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[36]
Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[37] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[37] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[37]
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"[38].
Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[39] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[40]
Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a holistic manner.[41] David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[42] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[43] |
this is kinda funny.. i can go on wiki and look up pages exactly like this telling you religion is fake haha. i could also look up elves and dwarves too.
did you know that early philosophers were the first scientists? |
isnt that exactly what youve already been doing? btw.. dwarves exist...
if philosphers are indeed scientist.. by your logic what i just posted is undeniable facts..
i could go on, but really.. my wikipedia post is all that needs to be said,
i will say you and trendy act as if science is your religion.. but yet act as if its held to a higher regard then religion.. its unquestionable and pure fact. how much would you hate a christian that acted as if religion wasnt a belief but pure fact.. well turn the table around thats how i am feeling about you.
anyhow like i said, re-read the wikipedia post.. oh btw that was under the "SCIENCE" wikipedia post, therefor its pure fact.
|
|
|
|
TuNA FISh
Team QnL
QnL Captain
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Bham, Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2994
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:17pm |
Originally posted by uc SYZYGY uc
Originally posted by Deadaim
from wiki-
Historian [COLOR=#0645ad">Jacques Barzun[/COLOR"> termed science "a [COLOR=#0645ad">faith[/COLOR"> as [COLOR=#0645ad">fanatical[/COLOR"> as any in [COLOR=#0645ad">history[/COLOR">" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of [COLOR=#0645ad">meaning[/COLOR"> as integral to [COLOR=#0645ad">human[/COLOR"> existence.<SUP id=cite_ref-34 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">35<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Many recent thinkers, such as [COLOR=#0645ad">Carolyn Merchant[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0645ad">Theodor Adorno[/COLOR"> and [COLOR=#0645ad">E. F. Schumacher[/COLOR"> considered that the 17th century [COLOR=#0645ad">scientific revolution[/COLOR"> shifted science from a focus on understanding [COLOR=#0645ad">nature[/COLOR">, or [COLOR=#0645ad">wisdom[/COLOR">, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. [COLOR=#0645ad">power[/COLOR">, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.<SUP id=cite_ref-UW_35-0 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">36<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.<SUP id=cite_ref-UW_35-1 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">36<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Philosopher of science [COLOR=#0645ad">Paul K Feyerabend[/COLOR"> advanced the idea of [COLOR=#0645ad">epistemological anarchism[/COLOR">, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free [COLOR=#0645ad">methodological rules[/COLOR"> governing the [COLOR=#0645ad">progress of science[/COLOR"> or the growth of [COLOR=#0645ad">knowledge[/COLOR">, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-0 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Feyerabend advocates treating science as an [COLOR=#0645ad">ideology[/COLOR"> alongside others such as [COLOR=#0645ad">religion[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0645ad">magic[/COLOR"> and [COLOR=#0645ad">mythology[/COLOR">, and considers the dominance of science in society [COLOR=#0645ad">authoritarian[/COLOR"> and unjustified.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-1 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> He also contended (along with [COLOR=#0645ad">Imre Lakatos[/COLOR">) that the [COLOR=#0645ad">demarcation problem[/COLOR"> of distinguishing science from [COLOR=#0645ad">pseudoscience[/COLOR"> on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-2 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"<SUP id=cite_ref-37 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">38<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">.
Professor [COLOR=#0645ad">Stanley Aronowitz[/COLOR"> scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.<SUP id=cite_ref-38 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">39<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that [COLOR=#0645ad">Fundamentalist Christianity[/COLOR"> uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.<SUP id=cite_ref-39 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">40<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Psychologist [COLOR=#0645ad">Carl Jung[/COLOR"> believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a [COLOR=#0645ad">holistic[/COLOR"> manner.<SUP id=cite_ref-40 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">41<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> David Parkin compared the [COLOR=#0645ad">epistemological[/COLOR"> stance of science to that of [COLOR=#0645ad">divination[/COLOR">.<SUP id=cite_ref-41 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">42<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning [COLOR=#0645ad">ethics[/COLOR"> in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher [COLOR=#0645ad">Bernard Rollin[/COLOR"> examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.<SUP id=cite_ref-42 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">43<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> |
dam this contains alot of words ive never seen before lol were are you guys finding this great material? great find Deadaim!
to assume there are facts would be like attempting to paint the Mona Lisa out in the rain and hoping it will turn out all right.
for one its assuming there aren't changes being made. lets assume there is a god for a moment.
would he create all we know and just leave it that way? what if he realized there were some flaws? would he change some things?
if i mis'spell something i can proof read and correct it if i chose to. if an artist see's a flaw in his masterpiece he can touch it up or leave it if he wants. if a computor program has glitches they can change the program or just leave them in.
im not saying any changes are being made by GOD but if he created everything we know and created us in his image then surely he could change some things if he wanted to. then its very possible that he changes some things when he see's fit.
if so science may be just chasing its own tail?
|
you know we have proved theories, right?
so are you saying that other intelligent species through out the universe look exactly like us? lol
sounds to me like you are describing an advanced species of alien who genetically altered our DNA to make us look like them, or make us into the perfect hybrid XD you have been watching too much history channel
|
|
The sun was high and so was I
- Best Coast
psn: HardhatTuna
XBL: Tuna is QnL
|
|
TuNA FISh
Team QnL
QnL Captain
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Bham, Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2994
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 2:12pm |
Originally posted by Deadaim
from wiki-
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[35] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[36] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[36]
Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[37] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[37] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[37]
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"[38].
Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[39] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[40]
Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a holistic manner.[41] David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[42] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[43] |
this is kinda funny.. i can go on wiki and look up pages exactly like this telling you religion is fake haha. i could also look up elves and dwarves too.
did you know that early philosophers were the first scientists?
|
|
The sun was high and so was I
- Best Coast
psn: HardhatTuna
XBL: Tuna is QnL
|
|
SIZZLE
Team oOPS
I'm your huckle berry
Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1352
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 1:20pm |
Originally posted by Deadaim
from wiki-
Â
Historian [COLOR=#0645ad">Jacques Barzun[/COLOR"> termed science "a [COLOR=#0645ad">faith[/COLOR"> as [COLOR=#0645ad">fanatical[/COLOR"> as any in [COLOR=#0645ad">history[/COLOR">" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of [COLOR=#0645ad">meaning[/COLOR"> as integral to [COLOR=#0645ad">human[/COLOR"> existence.<SUP id=cite_ref-34 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">35<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Many recent thinkers, such as [COLOR=#0645ad">Carolyn Merchant[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0645ad">Theodor Adorno[/COLOR"> and [COLOR=#0645ad">E. F. Schumacher[/COLOR"> considered that the 17th century [COLOR=#0645ad">scientific revolution[/COLOR"> shifted science from a focus on understanding [COLOR=#0645ad">nature[/COLOR">, or [COLOR=#0645ad">wisdom[/COLOR">, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. [COLOR=#0645ad">power[/COLOR">, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.<SUP id=cite_ref-UW_35-0 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">36<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.<SUP id=cite_ref-UW_35-1 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">36<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Philosopher of science [COLOR=#0645ad">Paul K Feyerabend[/COLOR"> advanced the idea of [COLOR=#0645ad">epistemological anarchism[/COLOR">, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free [COLOR=#0645ad">methodological rules[/COLOR"> governing the [COLOR=#0645ad">progress of science[/COLOR"> or the growth of [COLOR=#0645ad">knowledge[/COLOR">, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-0 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Feyerabend advocates treating science as an [COLOR=#0645ad">ideology[/COLOR"> alongside others such as [COLOR=#0645ad">religion[/COLOR">, [COLOR=#0645ad">magic[/COLOR"> and [COLOR=#0645ad">mythology[/COLOR">, and considers the dominance of science in society [COLOR=#0645ad">authoritarian[/COLOR"> and unjustified.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-1 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> He also contended (along with [COLOR=#0645ad">Imre Lakatos[/COLOR">) that the [COLOR=#0645ad">demarcation problem[/COLOR"> of distinguishing science from [COLOR=#0645ad">pseudoscience[/COLOR"> on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.<SUP id=cite_ref-contra_36-2 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">37<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"<SUP id=cite_ref-37 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">38<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">.
Professor [COLOR=#0645ad">Stanley Aronowitz[/COLOR"> scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.<SUP id=cite_ref-38 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">39<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that [COLOR=#0645ad">Fundamentalist Christianity[/COLOR"> uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.<SUP id=cite_ref-39 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">40<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR">
Psychologist [COLOR=#0645ad">Carl Jung[/COLOR"> believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a [COLOR=#0645ad">holistic[/COLOR"> manner.<SUP id=cite_ref-40 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">41<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> David Parkin compared the [COLOR=#0645ad">epistemological[/COLOR"> stance of science to that of [COLOR=#0645ad">divination[/COLOR">.<SUP id=cite_ref-41 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">42<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning [COLOR=#0645ad">ethics[/COLOR"> in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher [COLOR=#0645ad">Bernard Rollin[/COLOR"> examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.<SUP id=cite_ref-42 =reference>[COLOR=#0645ad"><SPAN">[</SPAN">43<SPAN">"></SPAN">[/COLOR"> |
dam this contains alot of words ive never seen before lol were are you guys finding this great material? great find Deadaim! to assume there are facts would be like attempting to paint the Mona Lisa out in the rain and hoping it will turn out all right. for one its assuming there aren't changes being made. lets assume there is a god for a moment. would he create all we know and just leave it that way? what if he realized there were some flaws? would he change some things? if i mis'spell something i can proof read and correct it if i chose to. if an artist see's a flaw in his masterpiece he can touch it up or leave it if he wants. if a computor program has glitches they can change the program or just leave them in. im not saying any changes are being made by GOD but if he created everything we know and created us in his image then surely he could change some things if he wanted to. then its very possible that he changes some things when he see's fit. if so science may be just chasing its own tail?
|
|
sHoCkD_Yo_aSs is a novice bot
|
|
SilverJ-17
Godlike Member
Silver Coinage
Joined: 05 Feb 2009
Location: Western Indiana
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1447
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 1:14pm |
Originally posted by MikeyBrennan
Who doesn't believe in god?  you fail,if you don't believe in god. But than again,people have there own believes. |
I was raised in an Atheist/ Agnostic family? I don't recall anyone in my extended family that goes to church and some don't even believe in God. Then, there's Deadaim's response to consider. Not everybody is so impressionable. There's a fair share of Catholic children who stopped believing when they were teens, despite drawing the wrath (in some cases) of their parents and family.
|
|
F.u.k-shaker
Godlike Member
raptor pilot
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Location: Norge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1160
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 11:02am |
|
Ok cool...
|
|
|
|
F.u.k-shaker
Godlike Member
raptor pilot
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Location: Norge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1160
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 11:01am |
he he he he he, that had me laughin good... Nice one.
And U know he will find you:-)
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 11:01am |
|
no, i believe in "god", the father the son and the holy spirit.. i wasnt saying i dont believe the bible.. i meant its not my reason for having faith.
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:58am |
Originally posted by F.u.k-shaker
Q:believe in god for my own reasons.. not because of anyone else or any books....
Im not arguing, but what are "God" to u Deadaim?
|
chuck norris
|
|
|
|
F.u.k-shaker
Godlike Member
raptor pilot
Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Location: Norge
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1160
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:55am |
Q:believe in god for my own reasons.. not because of anyone else or any books....
Im not arguing, but what are "God" to u Deadaim?
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:38am |
Originally posted by BucKetHe4d
Originally posted by MikeyBrennan
Who doesn't believe in god? you fail,if you don't believe in god. But than again,people have there own believes. |
That's what I was talking about. If you were raised to believe in god you cannot imagine life without him. Think about it rationally which you can't cause since the day you were born he was a part of your life cause your parents chose to do so. Anyway think about it rationally it gets more interesting, you might just find some more..fitting..answers and most of all accept those.
But yeah, ppl have their own beliefs. |
i get what you are saying.. but you are also making a huge assumption.. my mom is atheist.. i went to church a handful of times in my life.. religion isnt being forced on everyone as impressionable childs like you are saying.. i believe in god for my own reasons.. not because of anyone else or any books.
|
|
|
|
-DaGoN-
Godlike Member
I've got a bucket on me head!!!
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1683
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:33am |
Originally posted by MikeyBrennan
Who doesn't believe in god? you fail,if you don't believe in god. But than again,people have there own believes. |
That's what I was talking about. If you were raised to believe in god you cannot imagine life without him. Think about it rationally which you can't cause since the day you were born he was a part of your life cause your parents chose to do so. Anyway think about it rationally it gets more interesting, you might just find some more..fitting..answers and most of all accept those.
But yeah, ppl have their own beliefs.
|
|
B-B-BucKetHe4D !
|
|
Guests
Guest Group
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:17am |
Who doesn't believe in god? you fail,if you don't believe in god. But than again,people have there own believes.
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:11am |
from wiki-
Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[35] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[36] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[36]
Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[37] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[37] He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[37]
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"[38].
Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[39] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[40]
Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a holistic manner.[41] David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[42] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[43]
|
|
|
|
Deadaim
[qM]
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1791
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 10:09am |
science isnt facts... why are you guys so idiotic about science? science has always been about uncertantities.. nothing is ever fact.. any scientific experiment or theory can change the milisecond new evidence is introduced.. stop being asstards you look like angry f'ing nerds.
|
|
|
|
Hey_Look_its_Trendy
Senior Member
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 228
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 9:51am |
Originally posted by Blackfang
when you pray in tongues your not praying in your understanding. Man doesn't understand it. That would include man's attempt ay science. |
We do understand it, read my very first post on this thread. It's not an attempt, it's a fact.
|
|
Islanders fan, huh? Team of the future I always say.
|
|
TuNA FISh
Team QnL
QnL Captain
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Bham, Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2994
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 8:21am |
|
anyways, they talk about how stupid it is in the bible too.. i'm pretty sure Paul walked into a church where people were "speaking in tongues" and freaked out on everyone.. i can't remember it exactly but i'm positive it's in the bible.
|
|
The sun was high and so was I
- Best Coast
psn: HardhatTuna
XBL: Tuna is QnL
|
|
TuNA FISh
Team QnL
QnL Captain
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Location: Bham, Alabama
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2994
|
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: 05 Aug 2010 at 8:15am |
Originally posted by Blackfang
when you pray in tongues your not praying in your understanding. Man doesn't understand it. That would include man's attempt ay science. |
lol do you think science is supernatural or something? the whole speaking in tongues thing is dumb.. people are so gullible
|
|
The sun was high and so was I
- Best Coast
psn: HardhatTuna
XBL: Tuna is QnL
|
|
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
