Jorge - world views.

[wattsr1]

Gidday Jorge,


Why not you "explain [to me] the concept of 'worldview'"?

Apparently you understand the concept, but I do not.* So educate me.



Regards, Roland

* From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=43

[wattsr1]

Gidday Jorge,


Why not you "explain [to me] the concept of 'worldview'"?

Apparently you understand the concept, but I do not.* So educate me.



Regards, Roland

* From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...3&postcount=43

You there Jorge?


Look I am happy to put up a definition (no dictionary involved).

However, I am not going to do it if you are a chicken and am not going to come and play.

Or is it that you fear losing the farm? But you don't have a farm, do you?


Regards, Roland

[MooseOnTheLoose]

Roland, your persistence would erode rocks.

[showmeproof]

Here I'll answer for Jorge:
ignore off:
Are you stooooopid? You know I think you are intellectual dishonest....I've answered this many times and I'm not going to waste my time casting pearls to swine.
Ignore on:

[Jorge]

Roland, your persistence would erode rocks.

*****************************************************************************************

More like, "Roland, your insistence would melt lead."

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*****************************************************************************************

More like, "Roland, your insistence would melt lead."

Jorge

Jorge - stop poking your jaw out so far.

Now, do you want me to define "world view" for you or not?

And if I do, will you return and offer a critique or will you simply run off and ignore it?

After all, you did bet the farm.



Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

Jorge - stop poking your jaw out so far.

Now, do you want me to define "world view" for you or not?

And if I do, will you return and offer a critique or will you simply run off and ignore it?

After all, you did bet the farm.



Regards, Roland

*********************************************************************************

Lessee ... you've had several days to consult the dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites,
the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian ... yeah, sure, go ahead, you might be ready
by now to post something semi-intelligible. I'm merely curious as to what we're gonna see...

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*********************************************************************************

Lessee ... you've had several days to consult the dictionaries, encyclopedias, websites,
the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian ... yeah, sure, go ahead, you might be ready

Even if I had looked up these resources Jorge, it would indicate that I am capable of doing so, and thus considering or learning something, before I comment.

So it is telling that you should, in a way, mock such an approach.

Nevertheless, no dictionary or other resources involved.

by now to post something semi-intelligible. I'm merely curious as to what we're gonna see...

A world view is an idea or a set of ideas defining our view of reality in a global and ultimate sense. It is generally couched in religious and/or philosophical terms and deals with such things as existence, its nature, its causes, its purpose, its meaning, and how we can know and understand it.


Now back to you for a substantive criticism.



Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

A world view is an idea or a set of ideas defining our view of reality in a global and ultimate sense. It is generally couched in religious and/or philosophical terms and deals with such things as existence, its nature, its causes, its purpose, its meaning, and how we can know and understand it.


Now back to you for a substantive criticism.

Regards, Roland

*********************************************************************

Substantive criticism & contribution, coming right up!

I've modified & commented what you supplied.
I tried to keep as much of your original, without changes, as I could.

Based on what it is, 'worldview' is one word.

A worldview is an idea or a set of ideas defining our view of reality in a global
and ultimate sense. A worldview is generally couched in always based on
a religious and/or philosophical position. This is necessarily so because a person's
worldview deals with such things as existence, its nature, its causes, its purpose, its
meaning, and how we can know and understand it and these are areas belonging to the
religious / philosophical realm, not to the natural sciences. Natural science does not and
cannot address such matters since, for example, natural science cannot even begin to
address the question of meaning and purpose. In fact, Materialistic natural science
totally denies the existence of meaning and purpose -- there is NONE as per Materialism!


Any informed, honest person knows these things, Roland.
You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.
If you cannot or will not accept & acknowledge the above
then (1) you'd better have a very good argument or,
(2) this conversation is over.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

*********************************************************************

Substantive criticism & contribution, coming right up!

I've modified & commented what you supplied.
I tried to keep as much of your original, without changes, as I could.

Based on what it is, 'worldview' is one word.

A worldview is an idea or a set of ideas defining our view of reality in a global
and ultimate sense. A worldview is generally couched in always based on
a religious and/or philosophical position. This is necessarily so because a person's
worldview deals with such things as existence, its nature, its causes, its purpose, its
meaning, and how we can know and understand it and these are areas belonging to the
religious / philosophical realm, not to the natural sciences. Natural science does not and
cannot address such matters since, for example, natural science cannot even begin to
address the question of meaning and purpose. In fact, Materialistic natural science
totally denies the existence of meaning and purpose -- there is NONE as per Materialism!


Any informed, honest person knows these things, Roland.
You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.
If you cannot or will not accept & acknowledge the above
then (1) you'd better have a very good argument or,
(2) this conversation is over.

Jorge

Thankyou Jorge.

The problem is, what has your "Substantive criticism & contribution" got to do with anything, including the price of eggs?

You asked for a definition of world view and you got it.

Your "contribution" is beside the point. Other than tweaking a word or two in the definition of mine, your main addition in red is irrelevant. It is a criticism of materialism and a criticism of me.

Don't you understand the difference between a definition of world view and a criticism of materialism or a criticism of me?

or, ... this conversation is over.

No wonder you want this to be over before you start.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.

I'm happy for this thread to go in another direction Jorge.

So show me where and how I have done this. Provide some examples from posts of mine, just so that I know you are not making things up.



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

And you owe me the farm.

Given that you did little more to my definition than tweak the odd word (e.g. from "generally" to "always"), then I reckon you found little wrong with it.

So pay up Jorge. Oh that's right, you had no farm to bet anyway. :)


Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

And you owe me the farm.

That assumes that you did not do one bit of looking-up references.
Do you honestly expect me to take your word on that? Geesh !!!

Given that you did little more to my definition than tweak the odd word (e.g. from "generally" to "always"), then I reckon you found little wrong with it.

So pay up Jorge. Oh that's right, you had no farm to bet anyway. :)


Regards, Roland

I take it that you're not bright enough to realize that my "tweaking" completely
demolishes your Materialistic position. Here it is again so that you can verify this :

A worldview is an idea or a set of ideas defining our view of reality in a global
and ultimate sense. A worldview is generally couched in always based on
a religious and/or philosophical position. This is necessarily so because a person's
worldview deals with such things as existence, its nature, its causes, its purpose, its
meaning, and how we can know and understand it and these are areas belonging to the
religious / philosophical realm, not to the natural sciences. Natural science does not and
cannot address such matters since, for example, natural science cannot even begin to
address the question of meaning and purpose. In fact, Materialistic natural science
totally denies the existence of meaning and purpose -- there is NONE as per Materialism!


Other than empty blathering, you have not refuted this nor have you accepted / acknowledged it.
This comes as no surprise to me. It has been my experience that to get a Materialist to
accept the truth in these matters is like trying to get Richard Dawkins to confess Jesus Christ
as his Lord and Savior (i.e., it could happen but hell will probably freeze-over first).


"Any informed, honest person knows these things, Roland.
You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.
If you cannot or will not accept & acknowledge the above
then (1) you'd better have a very good argument or,
(2) this conversation is over."


Ergo, this conversation is over (as I fully expected it would be). Ta-ta ...

Jorge

[wattsr1]

Oh don't be so silly Jorge. You always bail out of the arguments you get yourself into, no matter who it is with - Rogue, Jim, DDW, Dr GH, Sparko,Tiggy, myself, .... Having done it yet again, I must ask - why does always doing this never make you stop and think about your own claims and your ability to argue for them?


I went back and checked.

Essentially all you have done is cut and paste your own post which:-

1) Does nothing to back up your claim that I could not define worldview,

2) Then tweaks a few words in my definition, offering nothing substantial to it, then

3) Provides an addition to it which is a criticism of materialism and me and hence adds nothing to either your claim or my definition.

I then ask you to back up your assertions that:-

“You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.”

You ignored this request and instead provided me with a cut and paste of your first post, telling me that I must accept what you say.

Other than empty blathering, you have not refuted this nor have you accepted / acknowledged it.

Why should I accept and acknowledge it? Where do you get this sense from - that because you wrote it then it must be correct, no questions asked?

Given that you always bail out of discussions you jump into, without offering any argument beyond sheer assertion, then how do you ever show yourself to be correct in anything?

However, I did say that I am happy for this thread to go off in a tangent. So, unlike you who simply ignores what I ask, I shall address your tangent.

Here it is:-

“and these are areas belonging to the religious / philosophical realm, not to the natural sciences. Natural science does not and cannot address such matters since, for example, natural science cannot even begin to
address the question of meaning and purpose. In fact, Materialistic natural science totally denies the existence of meaning and purpose -- there is NONE as per Materialism! “


In one sense, how can I totally deny the existence of meaning and purpose when it is around me all the time? Are you really this silly?

In the ultimate sense of meaning and existence, I have never claimed that natural science can address this. In fact I have always said the opposite when the question has arisen. So you saying otherwise is simply you making up a story about me. Making up stories about me and then insinuating that they are truth, is wrong, is it not?

Here is a typical example of what I claim. To Dr GH I wrote:-

“To my mind the question of God /no God is not the important one, although I understand that most theists will disagree.

To me it is a question that cannot really be determined in any absolute sense.”

The moment I make such a claim I am saying in effect that there are things that are simply beyond our ken. I could scan through my posts for better examples, however it is not worth it given that you have now simply run off.

Ergo, this conversation is over (as I fully expected it would be). Ta-ta

That’s right, bail out again Jorge.

If you have the gonads to return, how about addressing this little bit:-

Jorge
You have repeatedly demonstrated NOT knowing them.

Roland
I'm happy for this thread to go in another direction Jorge.
So show me where and how I have done this. Provide some examples from posts of mine, just so that I know you are not making things up.




Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

Other than empty blathering, you have not refuted this nor have you accepted / acknowledged it.

In fact Jorge, years ago, probably in "Birth of a new star", I remember discussing this with you and pointing out and agreeing with you that philosophy underpins everything we do, think or say.

This comes as no surprise to me. It has been my experience that to get a Materialist to accept the truth in these matters is like trying to get Richard Dawkins to confess Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior (i.e., it could happen but hell will probably freeze-over first).

No point in lecturing me about the morals of materialists when it is you who demonstrates such a loose grip on reality and a low eithical standard.




Regards, Roland