RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 3:49:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata The "different view" is quoted at the link in the post. Sorry, I confused a couple of posts. http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4298645 K.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 4:23:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel He explains that the evidence is invalidated by his conspiracy theory and then explains that his conspiracy theory is validated by the lack of evidence. Dude, you're saying "he" and "his" when I asked you about "me", which makes it a bit unclear what you're referring to. As for the cycle you're proposing, it's not my theory. That said, should you like to argue with that particular theory to which I do not subscribe, I would suggest you take it up with Niklas Boström at Oxford who actually does subscribe to it, and is probably far better suited to arguing his theories than I, seeing as he's actually spent time on that, which I haven't. Just in passing, you do realize that establishing circular reasoning doesn't assign a truth value to the propositions involved, right? It demonstrates that the reasoning involved fails to establish anything new by virtue of its conclusion being present in the premise, no more and no less. The sketch you provided is a simplistic reduction of an argument I haven't made. IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 4:42:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Dude, you're saying "he" and "his" when I asked you about "me", which makes it a bit unclear what you're referring to. He likes playing to the audience, that's all. It's some kind of a "star" complex, I think. K.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 4:45:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Your level of proof... I've never said anything whatsoever about a "level of proof." I'm talking about a type of proof. The apparently obscure clue to this was a statement I made a couple posts back from one to which you replied. In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. In other words, the same type of proof typically demanded of those who believe in the existence of a supraphysical reality. Shoe on the other foot, get it? K. Your whole argument is sophistry and rather pointless.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 4:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Your whole argument is sophistry... That's a catchy refrain you keep repeating. Maybe you should get yourself a band and some backup singers. K.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 5:02:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Your whole argument is sophistry... That's a catchy refrain you keep repeating. Maybe you should get yourself a band and some backup singers. K. That's about as good as your argument gets. You can't argue with taste, it has no substance beyond the individual.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 5:58:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver That's about as good as your argument gets. Characterizing facts as "sophistry" says all that needs to be said about your grasp of the discussion and the value of your opinions in the matter. It is a fact that I am using the word "faith" correctly in accord with the dictionary definition cited. It is a fact that faith thus defined need not be "unreasonable". It is a fact that science's field of endeavor is limited to what is knowable by its methods. And it is a fact that determining whether either a God or the universe exist independently of consciousness is not. But hey, thanks for sharing. K.

slaveIMGI -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 6:29:25 AM)
NM

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 7:55:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver That's about as good as your argument gets. Characterizing facts as "sophistry" says all that needs to be said about your grasp of the discussion and the value of your opinions in the matter. It is a fact that I am using the word "faith" correctly in accord with the dictionary definition cited. It is a fact that faith thus defined need not be "unreasonable". It is a fact that science's field of endeavor is limited to what is knowable by its methods. And it is a fact that determining whether either a God or the universe exist ROFL!!!!!!!! Quote 'It is a fact that faith thus defined need not be 'unreasonable'. What ever you say, whatever you say. So much for the quality of a fact in your world. Given that you originally said everything is dependent on faith, how the fuck you can now say something that is not a fact is in fact reasonable. Bizarre. 'It is a fact that sciences field of endeavour is limited to what is knowable methods.' Sort of goes without saying considering the whole point of science is to observe and measure and create observable experiments. Your last sentence doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

jlf1961 -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 10:54:28 AM)
After some research, and discovering that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I have come to the opinion that if all religions were represented, and the option to not participate were made clear, religious teachings in public schools would be constitutional. Not that I am saying that should happen. By the way, you can check it yourself, but the only things in the Constitution and Bill of Rights about religion are the guarantee that people have the right to worship as they so choose, and that there would be no establishment of a state church.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 11:15:01 AM)
You did all that research, and yet did not see this? Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." No, those exact words did not find their way into the constitution, but it's plain as day just what the intention was. Research some more. Thank you. PS And separation from the mandatory Anglican prayer laws as existed in England was no small deal, either.

jlf1961 -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 11:28:24 AM)
It is clear that the founding fathers did not want a religious based government, and the intent may be there, but as it is written, the codification of such a statement is not. And religion is very much a part of government, at least according to the payroll. Look into the office of the chaplain of the senate and the chaplain of the House of Representatives, as well as the fact that every branch of service has chaplains. The fact that those positions exist does not lend support for the argument of separation of church and state.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 11:55:30 AM)
It was intended that the federal government not dictate which national religious faith a person should have, nor what prayers they should recite on Sunday, such situation as existed in England at that time. I'm not sure how accommodation of people within the various defense services would relate to that intention, but aside from the insertion of "under God" (in 1954) in the Pledge of Allegiance, we seem to have done the task so far. I am a bit more troubled by the congress inviting into the discussion of birth control all those priests, reverends, rabbis, etc. into the very halls of our democracy. THAT was a clear and unmistakable violation of the constitution.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 12:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML But, he did not say to abandon the search for a more valid theory. Well, neither have I. Did you get that impression? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What is the "different view" may I ask that leads from Hawkins to your position: "In my use of the word proof, I mean scientific proof. An objective reality existing independently of consciousness is not a scientific hypothesis, for the same reason that the existence of a supraphysical reality is not: neither is falsifiable by the methods of science." The "different view" is quoted at the link in the post. Most people believe that there is an objective reality out there and that our senses and our science directly convey information about the material world. Classical science is based on the belief that an external world exists whose properties are definitive and independent of the observer who perceives them... Instead we adopt a view that... a physical theory or world picture is a model... it is pointless to ask whether a model is real, only where it agrees with observation. Hawking agrees with Popper, who takes the position that all human knowledge is irreducibly conjectural. We can neither prove nor falsify the proposition that an objective world exists independently of conciousness because consciousness is what we employ to examine and understand it. K. I have no problem with model-dependent realism as an epistemological view of science. (How do we know that we know?) and (What is the limit of our knowing?) are valid questions. I am clearly in agreement with you now that I understand what you are referring to. Almost. Yes, the work of science is to build models of reality. That is what science does. And yes, those models are subject to change when new data is discovered. Reality may not have changed. The models are not reality. And yes, if you wish to draw the fine line between testing models vs testing reality, I will agree. But that line pretty much disappears when it comes to successful application of the model through engineering. We have a model of the solar system. None of us has ever seen the whole of the reality of it. But based on this model we make predictions and are able to land vehicles on the moon and on Mars. At that point the model becomes reality for all practical purposes. Your comment about the necessity of consciousness seems to be redundant. Of course consciousness is implicit in doing science. I mean, it goes without saying, since it requires human mental activity. I don't see where explicating that condition contributes to the philosophy of model-dependent realism, except as a preface.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 12:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 After some research, and discovering that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, I have come to the opinion that if all religions were represented, and the option to not participate were made clear, religious teachings in public schools would be constitutional. Not that I am saying that should happen. By the way, you can check it yourself, but the only things in the Constitution and Bill of Rights about religion are the guarantee that people have the right to worship as they so choose, and that there would be no establishment of a state church. General Rule: Public schools may not teach religion, although teaching about religion in a secular context is permitted. 25 The Bible may be taught in a school, but only for its historical, cultural or literary value and never in a devotional, celebratory or doctrinal manner, or in such a way that encourages acceptance of the Bible as a religious document. What distinguishes "teaching religion" from "teaching about religion"? Religion may be presented as part of a secular educational program. Programs that "teach about religion" are geared toward teaching students about the role of religion in the historical, cultural, literary and social development of the United States and other nations. These programs should instill understanding, tolerance and respect for a pluralistic society. When discussing religion in this context, religion must be discussed in a neutral, objective, balanced and factual manner. Such programs should educate students about the principle of religious liberty as one of the fundamental elements of freedom and democracy in the United States. "Teaching religion" amounts to religious indoctrination and practice and is clearly prohibited in public schools. A public school curriculum may not be devotional or doctrinal. Nor may it have the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion. A teacher must not promote or denigrate any particular religion, religion in general, or lack of religious belief. A teacher must not interject personal views or advocate those of certain students. Teachers must be extremely sensitive to respect, and not interfere with, a student's religious beliefs and practices. Students must not be encouraged to accept or conform to specific religious beliefs or practices." <SNIP>

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 12:41:28 PM)
quote: I am a bit more troubled by the congress inviting into the discussion of birth control all those priests, reverends, rabbis, etc. into the very halls of our democracy. THAT was a clear and unmistakable violation of the constitution. The First Amendment prohibits interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This extends to the religious as well as the secular.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 6:49:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver ROFL!!!!!!!! Quote 'It is a fact that faith thus defined need not be 'unreasonable'. Bizarre. What's "bizarre" is the way you blindly contradict yourself. We have both cited the definition of faith as belief without proof, and I've made clear that by proof I mean scientific proof. Yet your argument ignores that and relies instead on a bald claim of your own invention: Faith is believing in something without the evidence of experience You can't simply dismiss religious experience by fiat. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 8:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML At that point the model becomes reality for all practical purposes. Absolutely. The fact that we can't, strictly speaking, actually prove that an objective reality exists independently of consciousness is more or less a curiosity. We know from experience that the Moon is real enough for all practical purposes: we've been there. Returning to the train analogy again, we don't know (and can't prove) what happens to someone's consciousness when they get hit by a train. They might simply find themselves in some non-physical reality thinking "Wow! This is cool!" and wishing they could let their friends know they're okay. But we do know from practical experience what happens to a human body when it's hit by a train, and as a practical matter that is more than sufficient to make getting out of its way a wise choice. For practical purposes, we rely on our experience of the world, not proof of its reality, for the choices we make and what we believe about it. And this is where we come up against belief in the existence of some kind of supraphysical reality. People who have had religious experiences, which they almost uniformly describe as being more real even than that train, or people who have actually personally experienced finding themselves outside their body, cannot simply be dismissed as believing in something "without the evidence of experience." The evidence for a supraphysical reality is the same as the evidence for a physical reality: it is the evidence of experience. Is it replicable? Sure. Countless people have had these experiences. Under controlled conditions? No, not so much. Consciousness is manifestly less cooperative than matter when it comes to controlled experiments. But that should not stop us from recognizing that these experiences, and their implications, deserve consideration. Of course, sniffing at such things and dismissing them with ridicule is standard fair for pious communicants of the Chuch of Materialsm, who rival the Vatican in their zeal for scourging heresy. But we've had enough shit from priests already, don't you think? K.

Edwynn -> RE: Indoctrination (12/8/2012 9:22:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I am a bit more troubled by the congress inviting into the discussion of birth control all those priests, reverends, rabbis, etc. into the very halls of our democracy. THAT was a clear and unmistakable violation of the constitution. The First Amendment prohibits interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This extends to the religious as well as the secular. They were not peaceably assembling nor petitioning. They were giving testimony at the behest of the US Congress, as part of a direct process of law-making, an entirely different matter.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/9/2012 7:21:26 AM)
quote: Absolutely. The fact that we can't, strictly speaking, actually prove that an objective reality exists independently of consciousness is more or less a curiosity. We know from experience that the Moon is real enough for all practical purposes: we've been there. Well, without consciousness we wouldn't give a fuck if objective reality exists, would we? The trip to the moon is more than just experience. It is the result of prediction that had precusor models from Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Galileo, and Einstein, amonst others. If the trip had failed there would have been a flaw in either the model or in the mechanism of the test. It seems to me you keep harping upon the role of consciousness in science, which is self-evident, to serve your argument for supraphysics, as you call it. quote: The evidence for a supraphysical reality is the same as the evidence for a physical reality: it is the evidence of experience. Is it replicable? Sure. Countless people have had these experiences. Under controlled conditions? No, not so much. Bullshit. The evidence for a supraphysical reality is not falsifiable. It is anecdotal. Therefore, highly unreliable at best. quote: Of course, sniffing at such things and dismissing them with ridicule is standard fair for pious communicants of the Chuch of Materialsm, who rival the Vatican in their zeal for scourging heresy. But we've had enough shit from priests already, don't you think? When your major premises and conclusions are weak you are not able to resist a smartass personal attack. A sure sign that you realise you are on shaky ground. How funny [:D]

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875