RE: Religion and D/s (Full Version)

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



Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 4:44:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

You're making me laugh, is what you're doing.

The study of the physical sciences - let's be clear here, this is what you're basing your life view on - doesn't contradict religion, it literally and absolutely can't. It can't even consider religion. They are two halves of a ying-yang whole. Neither can explain, or contradict, or invalidate the other, and nor should they try.

Once again, I'll point you to the article, written by the man himself, of the leader of the Human Genome Project. A man that heads a team of renowned scientists in mapping out every chromosome, every gene, and every twist in human DNA. A man who's life of science has lead him from pure scepticism to a deep belief. If science by it's very nature contradicts religion, then how can this possibly be. Biologists are particularly prone to agnosticism or atheism,  yet here we have a man who is a leader in chemistry and biology stating that he believes in God, and not only does he believe in God but his work in science lead him there.


The two can contradict.  If you perfer to laugh and not see it, then go for it, but it's just another silly assumption.

Why are you relying on a biologist's word, particularly when his intellectual superiors (Newton, Einstein, etc.) disagree?   I mean, sure, he must've been a pretty smart guy, but compared to the founders of the sciences?




SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 5:44:03 PM)

Show me the contradiction then, my wise and wily brother. Enlighten this poor village fool.

Newton? Einstein? Sure they were the fathers of science, but that doesn't make them the intellectual superiors of modern day equivalents. Einstein is famous for being humanitarian, and for coming up with a theory that even he admitted was flawed and incomplete. Newton is most famous for giving a name to gravity, without actually figuring out what gravity itself was. Intellectual superiors? No, just the first explorers to forge a path. In my own field, Kevin Mitnick was a fore-runner of the hacker evolution, and he has great insights to share, but he is hardly the foremost hacker to ever walk the face of the planet.

Six.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 6:02:51 PM)

Gravity?  My friend, Newton came up with Calculus freely!  The guy who ran some biologists in the genome project is by no means his modern day equal!  I mean, don't get me wrong- I think relying on people for answers is silly to begin with- but this guy?  Com'n. :P
PS-  If you're interested in his modern day equivalent, you'll probably have to wait fifty or a hundred years for him to be recognized.  His theories are likely too advanced to even be understood by the general public at this point, not that anyone cares.  We're too stuck with these stupid endevors to care for the works of a genius.
Still, you could go with Stephan Hawkings if you need something that's not far off from a modern day equivalent.  He's more of a people's person, but he is quite intellgient.  (End of PS.)

The contradiction is the assumption that God exists; assumption contradicts reason.

If you assume God exists, you can say, "God is great if God exists", and make your arguments for that.  But to say, "God exists; therefore, God exists" is the epitome of what it means to have circular logic.



xoxi -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 6:11:03 PM)

FWIW neither Newton nor Einstein specialised in biology.  They may or may not be the "intellectual superiors" but in a specialised field, those with the specialisation trump even the biggest geniuses in other fields.

A question for you CL - my personal religious view is that the gods worshipped in religions are avatars of God in the supreme sense. Does that still seem contradictory?  I do believe that there have been false prophets (Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Mohammed, etc.) but that there have also been true avatars of God (Christ, Buddha, Krishna, YHWH) and prophets of God (Moses, Zarathustra, I'd even count Ahkenaten as a prophet) who have revealed divine truth as it made sense to them.

My sophomore religious teacher described world religion as a bunch of mice looking at an elephant.  To the one who saw its feet, the elephant (God) is a bit dirty, round and cylinder-shaped, whereas the one who saw his ear saw the elephant as soft and supple.  Neither are wrong though they both contradict one another - they are just different views of the same object.

And FWIW, a mouse who got stuck in the elephants mouth would look around in the darkness and say "elephant? there is no elephant here. it's all just a void."
[;)]



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 6:23:31 PM)

Biology's a little lower on the food chain in the hard sciences.  (It goes:  Biology, Chemistry, Physics.)  It's mostly with regards to increasing level of abstraction needed to do the work; biology's more specific and reliant on memorization, sort of like social sciences, only not to that extreme.

Yes, that would be a contradiction- others do not believe in a God over their own.  And others might believe in a God over yours, or a different nature altogether, or in the absense of a God and the presense of magic, or any other random sort of assumption.  It's true that the more you generalize your theory, the less immediately inaccurate it'll be, but this doesn't stave off the ultimate conclusion.

Your mouse would put down it's paw and show there's a God.  It would walk out and see the elephant.  The elephant's very real and immediately there.  Of course, if the mouse had lived all its life in the elephant's mouth, it'd probably tell another mouse that it's silly to believe that the mouth they live in is attached to other features that we know about elephants, and it'd be right.  It could be the mouth of some other creature, a damp cave, or anything else.

Assuming that the barrier around itself is anything other than what it appears to be would be silly of our little mouse.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 7:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

Gravity?  My friend, Newton came up with Calculus freely!  The guy who ran some biologists in the genome project is by no means his modern day equal!  I mean, don't get me wrong- I think relying on people for answers is silly to begin with- but this guy?  Com'n. :P
PS-  If you're interested in his modern day equivalent, you'll probably have to wait fifty or a hundred years for him to be recognized.  His theories are likely too advanced to even be understood by the general public at this point, not that anyone cares.  We're too stuck with these stupid endevors to care for the works of a genius.
Still, you could go with Stephan Hawkings if you need something that's not far off from a modern day equivalent.  He's more of a people's person, but he is quite intellgient.  (End of PS.)

The contradiction is the assumption that God exists; assumption contradicts reason.

If you assume God exists, you can say, "God is great if God exists", and make your arguments for that.  But to say, "God exists; therefore, God exists" is the epitome of what it means to have circular logic.


Calculus isn't science, it's math. Math is a manufactured and artificial system, that is completely defined in every rule. Math is not science.

Science is full of assumptions, in fact, it wouldn't work without them - you literally cannot account for every variable that might possibly exist. Hence, the creation of a closed system model/simulation that reflects the open system unconsideration. Science is predicated on the acceptability that this or that variable is irrelevant.

Science's circular reasoning: "The observed behavior is the behavior I observed"

Six.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 9:28:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Assuming that the barrier around itself is anything other than what it appears to be would be silly of our little mouse.


Being open to the possibility that the mouth is more than it seems would be insightful, and might lead the mouse to experiment with that hypothesis. However, as silly as you see that little mouse being, assuming the barrier is anything but what it appears, would also be .. you know.. right.

Six.

PS from Soshi who just brought Master lunch at work:

What if the elephant swallowed a fly...who had seen the whole elephant, and while in the mouth told the mouse "hey, you know, there's an elephant out there. I saw it. I experienced it myself."

Would it still be prudent for the mouse to say "no. you are wrong and unless you pry open the elephant's jaws, pick me up and fly me in the air so I can see it myself, I will assume you are just nuts."?



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 9:42:26 PM)

To post 267:

The barrier is what it appears to be.  Of course, there may be more outside- the mouse shouldn't assume there is or isn't.  He should keep an open mind.  He should not assume there's an elephant out there.

If a fly had seen the elephant, than, sure.  But there are a lot of skitzo flies out there, and there's no reason to believe that any of them have been outside of the elephant's mouth.  Further, many skitzo flies are coming up with many different, contradictory reports which, by the nature of the reports, can't all be correct.  As a matter of fact, most of the flies have to be wrong, if not all of them.  Are the flies a reliable source?

PS-  The flies are in disagreement.  Some say it's a human.  Some say it's a whale.  Some say it's a plastic bag.  Some say it's a cave.  Some say there's nothing.  Some say it's a cup.  Some say it's a bowl.  Some say it's an elephant.  Some say it's a jack'o'latern.  Some say it's a cardboard box.  Etc.  Why should someone believe that any of the flies are correct, let alone any specific one of them?

Also, let's remember that we're not in a cage.  There's no "outside" we're trying to explore.  So it's quite possible that there's not even an "outside" to explore.  Even if there was an outside, there's no reason to even believe that any of the flies have guessed it right, now is there?



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 9:46:01 PM)

(PS-  This is to Post 266.)

"The observed behavior is the behavior I observed" is not circular logic.  That's like saying "The red ball is the ball that's red".  It's called an identity.

And, again, I'm talking about the heart of science contradicting religion- the notions about assumptions and observation, etc.  Not specific things, which are based on assumptions (such as the law of gravity).

Also, my point about Calculus is that Newton was a brilliant man, beyond the kin of the genome project leader- not that Calculus was a science.  (Although, in truth.. some of it is these days. :P)



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 10:27:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

(PS-  This is to Post 266.)

"The observed behavior is the behavior I observed" is not circular logic.  That's like saying "The red ball is the ball that's red".  It's called an identity.

And, again, I'm talking about the heart of science contradicting religion- the notions about assumptions and observation, etc.  Not specific things, which are based on assumptions (such as the law of gravity).

Also, my point about Calculus is that Newton was a brilliant man, beyond the kin of the genome project leader- not that Calculus was a science.  (Although, in truth.. some of it is these days. :P)


Not at all, since the observed behavior may not be the behavior you believed you observed. You may believe it is the behavior you observed, but that doesn't make it the behavior you thought it was.

For example, a long time ago science maintained that all things were filled with an smoke like substance called "Ether", and that when you burned something, the smoke you witnessed was the "Ether" escaping, resulting in a reduction of mass. For example, burning a cord of wood resulted in the Ether escaping and the "Ether-less" wood becoming charcoal, and ash.

The behavior observed is the Ether escaping from the substance.

The actual behavior under observation is oxidisation of the hydrocarbon compounds that form the celluse structure of the wood, creating carbon-oxides, and other particulates.

You see?

The core of science is that it is a tool designed to understand the world/universe around us, nothing more, nothing less. Science does not and can not have all the answers, but perhaps all the answers a person needs. The distinction is there. I dare say you've never been to Mt Fuji, but I'm also sure you utterly believe it exists. Despite having any concrete evidence (remember, primary evidence cannot include heresay, photographs, recorded testimony, anything less than a personal eye-witness account). Heck, if you want to get nihilistic about it, you have no direct evidence I exist either, yet I'm sure you take it on faith that I, and everyone you perceive as interacting with you in some way do, and we are not just figments of a deranged imagination for example.

Six.





SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 10:30:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

To post 267:

The barrier is what it appears to be.  Of course, there may be more outside- the mouse shouldn't assume there is or isn't.  He should keep an open mind.  He should not assume there's an elephant out there.

If a fly had seen the elephant, than, sure.  But there are a lot of skitzo flies out there, and there's no reason to believe that any of them have been outside of the elephant's mouth.  Further, many skitzo flies are coming up with many different, contradictory reports which, by the nature of the reports, can't all be correct.  As a matter of fact, most of the flies have to be wrong, if not all of them.  Are the flies a reliable source?

PS-  The flies are in disagreement.  Some say it's a human.  Some say it's a whale.  Some say it's a plastic bag.  Some say it's a cave.  Some say there's nothing.  Some say it's a cup.  Some say it's a bowl.  Some say it's an elephant.  Some say it's a jack'o'latern.  Some say it's a cardboard box.  Etc.  Why should someone believe that any of the flies are correct, let alone any specific one of them?

Also, let's remember that we're not in a cage.  There's no "outside" we're trying to explore.  So it's quite possible that there's not even an "outside" to explore.  Even if there was an outside, there's no reason to even believe that any of the flies have guessed it right, now is there?


What makes you say we are not in a cage? Got any proof of that? Since you are making the assertion that we are absolutely not in a cage, the burden of proof falls on you.

Six.

PS: The mouse in question prayed really hard, which tickled the inside of the elephants mouth, causing it to open and reveal a portion of the outside of the elephant to him.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:07:51 PM)

To Post 270:

No one observed ether escaping.  They observed particles elsewhere; it was their conclusions which could've been mistaken, not the actual observations.

That's like saying:
"The red ball wasn't actually red, they only thought it was red because it was in a box, and the box said it would contain a red ball."


PS-  Missed the second half of your post.

Yeah, I believe Mt. Fuiji probably exists.  Other mountians exist, and it's pretty generaly agreed upon.  Still, for all I know, it doesn't.  If you asked me to stake my life on if it did, I'd not do it.  Mostly because, despite having far more credible evidence and sources than God does, I haven't seen it. 

Do you know it exists?  There's probably no reason for people to make it up, but it could be made up like the hot women from Africia that will move in with you and be your 24/7 TPE slave if you send them 5000 bucks.  Much like these Africian hotties, though unlike the mountian, there's a lot of reasons for people to make up a God.  (Not that the Vatican is a massive pyramid scheme, or anything.)



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:12:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

To Post 270:

No one observed ether escaping.  They observed particles elsewhere; it was their conclusions which could've been mistaken, not the actual observations.

That's like saying:
"The red ball wasn't actually red, they only thought it was red because it was in a box, and the box said it would contain a red ball."


They observed what they believed was Ether escaping (smoke), and from that established the belief that the wood had to be full of Ether. Both the observation and the conclusion were in error.

It's more like saying

The ball that came out of the box was red, so we assumed that boxes manufacture red balls. Only it wasn't red, and it wasn't a ball.

Six.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:14:44 PM)

If smoke wasn't actually escaping, then that was neither the "observed behavior" or the "behavior that was observed".

It was the "what they thought to be the observed behavior" or the "behavior that they thouht they observed".

It wasn't science but the researchers that were flawed.  :P

PS-  The idea that what's in the box didn't meet the assumptions further supports my point that assumptions are silly to be based off of- and that assumption had evidence!  :P



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:24:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

What makes you say we are not in a cage? Got any proof of that? Since you are making the assertion that we are absolutely not in a cage, the burden of proof falls on you.


Simply that I can walk around with boundaries getting in the way?  :P

Of course, I said there's not a cage- but I also said "even if there was".  My point is there's no reason to assume that there's a cage, but I'm not assuming that there isn't one.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

PS: The mouse in question prayed really hard, which tickled the inside of the elephants mouth, causing it to open and reveal a portion of the outside of the elephant to him.


So prayer tickles the elephant's mouth when nothing else has?  Interesting.  :P

Still, that analogy no more supports prayer than, "Tommy took a bath in nuclear radiation, then became Super Boy!" supports bathing in nuclear waste, because the act was arbitrary.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:31:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord
Still, that analogy no more supports prayer than, "Tommy took a bath in nuclear radiation, then became Super Boy!" supports bathing in nuclear waste, because the act was arbitrary.


The action itself was abitrary, but the result was not. In this case it is the result - enlightenment - that matters, not the path taken.

Six.

PS: If you've seen the walls of the cage, is it unreasonable to believe that they exist?



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:36:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

If smoke wasn't actually escaping, then that was neither the "observed behavior" or the "behavior that was observed".

It was the "what they thought to be the observed behavior" or the "behavior that they thouht they observed".

It wasn't science but the researchers that were flawed.  :P

PS-  The idea that what's in the box didn't meet the assumptions further supports my point that assumptions are silly to be based off of- and that assumption had evidence!  :P


This is complete misdirection - the point is that scientific practice is often a case of circular logic, and the overriding assumption that what we saw is what we thought we saw. In this, it is no different to any other faith based activity.

Six.



CuriousLord -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/12/2008 11:41:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

The action itself was abitrary, but the result was not. In this case it is the result - enlightenment - that matters, not the path taken.


Ah.  Then allow me to alter the analogy to suit this new case.

"Tommy went bathing in nuclear waste, which caused him to see that the ultimate truth to the universe is that 1+1=3."

Again, the action was arbitrary, as was the result.  In your analogy- enlightenment through prayer- you had the assumed idea that something would bring enlightenment and that there was an elephant outside.  Again, you're assuming that there's an elephant out there instead of something else.  It could've just a whale out there when he did whatever action he did to see something.

Further, all of this is assuming that there was something for him to be ejected!  Perhaps there is no outside.  Perhaps he's just in a box in which there's no way out.  Perhaps space itself stops at the boundaries.



Justme696 -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/13/2008 2:03:31 AM)

you 2 sound like a married couple

________
Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.
Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[2]
Mathematics, which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.[2] It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[2] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[2] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).
Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.



SixFootMaster -> RE: Religion and D/s (3/13/2008 2:17:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: SixFootMaster

The action itself was abitrary, but the result was not. In this case it is the result - enlightenment - that matters, not the path taken.


Ah.  Then allow me to alter the analogy to suit this new case.

"Tommy went bathing in nuclear waste, which caused him to see that the ultimate truth to the universe is that 1+1=3."

Again, the action was arbitrary, as was the result.  In your analogy- enlightenment through prayer- you had the assumed idea that something would bring enlightenment and that there was an elephant outside.  Again, you're assuming that there's an elephant out there instead of something else.  It could've just a whale out there when he did whatever action he did to see something.

Further, all of this is assuming that there was something for him to be ejected!  Perhaps there is no outside.  Perhaps he's just in a box in which there's no way out.  Perhaps space itself stops at the boundaries.


Thank you for finally coming around to my way of thinking!

Six.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875