RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 5:19:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xoxi

CL,
I think that's the point that was made earlier by (forgotthescreenname) that scientific discipline is inherently biased.  There is a definite bias toward one form of evidence, dismissing all others as "if you can not show me this, it may as well not even exist."  Personally I believe there are truths that are neither tangible nor demonstratable, such as the existence of love.  Any demonstration that 'shows' you love someone can also be used to try to weasel a favor out of them.  Scientifically, love does not exist.


That individual never made her point.  She just called it sexist and left without justifying it.

Scientifically, love does exist.  Hell, they can measure the chemicals qualitatively in the brain chemistry now.  I read a report years back studying how long romantic love can even last.

Science isn't ignorant of the facts, despite what the people who don't like it may claim.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 5:23:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

Anecdotal evidence, secondary evidence and tertiary evidence.

Not every piece of evidence is "scientific" primary evidence you know. Beyond the physical sciences, other disciplines accept broader ranges of evidence, particularly those dealing with sociology and history. Duuuuhhhhh!


Just because things like history and sociology accept things does't make them accurate.  After all, who thinks sociology and history are exact?

I'd like to point out from Wikipedia, "Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy".

Science just doesn't rely such falliable things.  I mean, sure, you can use it.. but if you do, your conclusions are prone to error and therefore unreliable.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 5:35:54 PM)

Not really, since all of physical science is based on observation using a pre-specified and limited set of senses. This is inherently limiting. Of course science doesn't exist to explain the unexplainable but rather to attempt to explain the explainable. Science deals in close system models wherein all variables that are not considered relevant are arbitrarily discarded. There is a particular trope about the ability of a bumble-bee to fly based on it's mass, and ability to produce lift using it's wings. By that model, it wasn't explainable - yet even then, bumble bees definitely could fly. Thus the scientific method employed was proven to be in error. This of course is the inherent danger in using closed models to explain all phenomen. Since science cannot conclusively prove anything using them, it can only show that in 99.99% of test cases, the expected result was met, and the hypothesis succeeded.

Don't you think it is rather limiting to assume that nothing exists that we cannot perceive with our five senses?

Ironically, the whole concept of dark matter and dark energy is rather "in your face" on that presumption, since 97% of the universe is made of something we cannot see, cannot measure, quantify, observe, or identify, and the existence of which we only know by the movement and relationships between things we can quantify and observe. That makes the physical observable universe the statistical anomaly.

Six.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 8:18:03 PM)

Science isn't limited to our five senses, my friend.  We detect plenty of things a human can't by feelings.  We detect radiation that's outside the view of the human visual range, chemicals that the human noise can't smell, small things that the skin can't feel (and even matter that rarely interacts with our own), temperatures that would kill a human faster than they could even feel it, etc.

What we do not rely on are the voices and emotions in someone's head.  Those have not been shown to be part of objective reality.  If they were, half the people in the nut house would be geniuses, and the demons that tell them to burn things or cut themselves would be.. well, some rather weird demons.



cjan -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 8:28:45 PM)

Imho, religiuos discussions are ones that no one actually convinces the other to even consider another point of view. Because , we are all so attached to our own opinions. It's rarely a true "give and take" discussion, in my experience.

Resorting to the old way and, unfortunately, still the same way, of resolving "religious" different points of view is what really gives me the willies.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 11:13:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Science isn't limited to our five senses, my friend.  We detect plenty of things a human can't by feelings.  We detect radiation that's outside the view of the human visual range, chemicals that the human noise can't smell, small things that the skin can't feel (and even matter that rarely interacts with our own), temperatures that would kill a human faster than they could even feel it, etc.

What we do not rely on are the voices and emotions in someone's head.  Those have not been shown to be part of objective reality.  If they were, half the people in the nut house would be geniuses, and the demons that tell them to burn things or cut themselves would be.. well, some rather weird demons.


What we perceive and detect is still limited to our own five senses. The sight reflects a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum it's true, but it is all still essentially the same thing. We view X-rays by converting their wavelength to something we can perceive directly, but it is still sight.

It truly saddens me when a person dismisses out of hand everything that science cannot explain. Particularly when other scientists, even great ones, are coming to realise that the very fact that science works at all is part of a greater truth. People like the leader of the Human Genome Project, for instance. Science, for example, cannot explain the telepathic connection between twins, precognition, and other phenomena that are supported overwhelmingly with anedotal evidence, yet have their existence refuted on the basis that the physical scientific disciplines cannot explain them.

It's a very short sighted view.

Six.



trusting -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/11/2008 11:30:57 PM)

to me, i feel that a woman is to always obey her husband, no matter what. she is to care for Him through good and bad times... He is allowed to punish His woman as seen fit, wih the severity depending on the offense committed.

if you would like to know about religion and BDSM you may take a look at this site, it does a wonderful job of explaining how things should be...

http://www.sexinchrist.com/submission.html



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:29:04 AM)

So you're saying that science is limited to perceiving things through the five senses.  That even instruments- which detect things we can't sense- are still limited to these fives senses because that's the way they feed the information back to us?  I hope you see that that's like saying a book can't convay any information that can't be seen, just because it feeds information in through the eyes.

However, looking aside that fallacy- what of this notion of the five senses and everything detectable not being the extent of what exists?  If something comes in through something other than the five senses- then you propose that there's phychic powers which account for other phenominia?

To get to the point.. you think that things magically appear as information in your head instead of coming in through some sort of physical sense?



ModeratorEleven -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:34:04 AM)

You might want to take this opportunity to start your own thread about the existance of God instead of derailing any thread about religion to have this debate.

XI



SteelofUtah -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:41:27 AM)

And see this is why you should never discuss religion or politics for fun someone always goes to the "You'll Poke your eye out" point and then the Moderators have to get involved, I end up handcuffed and once again I have to explain cattle prods to my wife.

Can't we all just accept that Religion is like Multiple Orgasms, most don't quite understand them but once you really have it you don't want to give it up.

Steel



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:45:01 AM)

This fellow's the Master of the OP, and he started this topic; I figured it wasn't unwelcome.



ModeratorEleven -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:46:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

Can't we all just accept that Religion is like Multiple Orgasms, most don't quite understand them but once you really have it you don't want to give it up.

Why should they have to?  There's nothing at all wrong with the discussion, I'm just proposing an alternate venue to keep any threads that dare mention religion from all being steered down the same road.

XI



SteelofUtah -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 12:54:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

Can't we all just accept that Religion is like Multiple Orgasms, most don't quite understand them but once you really have it you don't want to give it up.

Why should they have to?  There's nothing at all wrong with the discussion, I'm just proposing an alternate venue to keep any threads that dare mention religion from all being steered down the same road.

XI



I wasn't saying they should have to. Actually I was making a joke. I know that I really try to stay away from spiritual and religious discussions because of the nature they have at being pulled under a microscope.

Personally I am a Live and Let Live type. As far as I am concerned as long as it doesn't overflow into my personal sterile bubble I really don't care what someones personal beliefs are. I do however maintain that all is fair untill someone feels threatened and that is when the table changes and a nice discussion goes to heated debate and then to senseless nothingness.

I am all about discussing what you want to I just find it difficult to want to talk about these things I only looked in on this cause I saw that you had posted and that usually only happens when "Fit Hits the Shan" I saw it was getting a little personal and tried to make a joke. I got this thing about train wrecks I always stop, get out, and stare.

Now that I have babbled. I'll leave these gentlemen to thier semantics.

As Always

Steel



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:01:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

I'll leave these gentlemen to thier semantics.


The proper term is "lingustic discussion".



SteelofUtah -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:06:21 AM)

Yeah after getting a Dictionary I still like my word better.

Steel



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:11:12 AM)

I might care if you used "dictionary" instead of "Dictionary".  Your miscapitalization invalidates what may've otherwise been a point.  Also, the "getting" of a dictionary is a moot point.  It's the reading and referencing to it which may've been more relevant.

It's late, I'm bored, so I'm being a bit humorous with regard to "semantics".  I hope you didn't actually pull out a dictionary.  :P



SteelofUtah -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:18:04 AM)

**Actually I did cause I wondered if I used the word wrong**

www.webster.com

Sometime I have to make sure I'm not a complete blathering idiot.

Steel



trusting -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:18:12 AM)

i think religion has its place and people should learn to be more understanding of the way one believes.... damn, you would think that this would be one of the last places to find so many judgmental people!

i learn something new everyday on this site...





trusting -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:24:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah

And see this is why you should never discuss religion or politics for fun someone always goes to the "You'll Poke your eye out" point and then the Moderators have to get involved, I end up handcuffed and once again I have to explain cattle prods to my wife.

Can't we all just accept that Religion is like Multiple Orgasms, most don't quite understand them but once you really have it you don't want to give it up.

Steel


this is amazing... what a wonderful insight you have! lol



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 1:30:05 AM)

There's a bit of a difference in accepting kinks and religion.

To accept kinks is to accept someone for what they enjoy.  To accept religion is to accept fiction as truth.  I'm not into the latter, and I don't feel that people should accept a random, unreasonable belief just because it's a "belief". 


Such as..
If someone wants to have crazy anal masturbation using a dildo wihle staring in a mirror, cool.
If someone is convinced 1+1=3, then, sure, they're welcome to, but I'm going to point out their lack of reasoning behind it.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125