Page 63 of 65 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 641

Thread: O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

  1. #621
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,249
    Amen (Given)
    1170
    Amen (Received)
    20376
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I was about to write the same Rogue06, thanks for the doing it.

    I wonder if we should create a sticky we can just link to and quote from?
    An Abortion Fact List of sorts. Probably in the Pro-Life section smiley hmm.gif




    As I said, Adrift has posted some awfully good stuff on this, and the same PRATTs keep popping up like mushrooms... I'd be for it.

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  2. Amen Cow Poke, Leonhard, Teallaura, Adrift amen'd this post.
  3. #622
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,841
    Amen (Given)
    1013
    Amen (Received)
    3109
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    An Abortion Fact List of sorts. Probably in the Pro-Life section smiley hmm.gif




    As I said, Adrift has posted some awfully good stuff on this, and the same PRATTs keep popping up like mushrooms... I'd be for it.
    I'd support it. Would be a useful resource for other forum discussions as well.

  4. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.
  5. #623
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    55,249
    Amen (Given)
    1170
    Amen (Received)
    20376
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I'd support it. Would be a useful resource for other forum discussions as well.
    What is this of which you speak? Other. Forums?

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

  6. #624
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,291
    Amen (Given)
    1892
    Amen (Received)
    1580
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    I would say yes we do,
    And what is the answer and how did we come to know it?

    but even go beyond that. Just examine what you're saying here. You're doing philosophy right here, not science.
    I didn't say that one couldn't do philosophy, I said that philosophy isn't knowing.
    If you limit yourself to only the results that can be acquired empirical statements in peer-reviewed scientific journals (how science is done today since the 18th century), as you and Tassman seem to define knowledge to... how can you know the answer to this statement? Everything you're saying here is perfectly philosophical statements. I wouldn't say they're well-made statements, but you're not doing science when you're doing this.
    Because being interested, having questions, philosophizing if you will, by definition are the opposites of knowing.
    The logical positivists, who were a philosophical school who did champion your idea, that only scientific statements (and abstract analytical mathematical statements) make sense, would claim what you said above was nonsense since it could neither be analytically deduced nor empirically verified.
    We can only empirically verify whether a philosophical assumption is true or false, without that verification, we don't know.

    Like it or not, you can't escape metaphysics or philosophy. It supercedes science.
    I don't think anyone is trying to escape them, and you might argue that they precede science, but they don't supercede science, and they are not necessarily a source knowledge .

  7. #625
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,841
    Amen (Given)
    1013
    Amen (Received)
    3109
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    And what is the answer and how did we come to know it?
    I'm glad you're beginning to ask the right questions.

    I didn't say that one couldn't do philosophy, I said that philosophy isn't knowing.
    In that cause you would be forced to admit "I don't know whether science works or not."

    We can only empirically verify whether a philosophical assumption is true or false, without that verification, we don't know.
    And how do you know that? What arguments are used to show this? You can't use the success of science, to argue that science says anything about reality for instance only that the results are useful. Though granted, there is a school of skeptical philosophy that rejects the notion of reality and considers science only as providing handy useful notation and mathematical models for predicting events, but not telling anything about what actually occurs.

    I don't think anyone is trying to escape them, and you might argue that they precede science, but they don't supercede science, and they are not necessarily a source knowledge .
    I think you're doing a misunderstanding I'd attribute to Carl Sagen, and other popularizers of science, who keep perpetuating the Dark Ages mythology. There's the claim that ancient philosophers rejected empirical knowledge. Yet if you'd read even a single chapter of the Almagest, or Plato, or Aristotle, Zeno of Elea, or Parmenides, or Aristotle, or Maimonides or any of the classic works, you'd realize that they frequently employed empirical observations. Aristotle especially did which created the whole scholastic tradition of philosophy.

    The same is true of Bacon, or Descartes, or Russell, who were rebelling against the rather baroque metaphysics in their own era.

    All of these philosophers begin with observations that are true, and derive results from them, and examine other results and concepts.

    A classical discussion between Zeno and Parmenides about whether motion is a real phenomenon or an illusion, where Zeno holding that motion is real, and all things change and therefore "it is impossible to step into the same river twice", whereas Parmeineides held that motion was impossible and entire an illusion since according to him motion required something to cease to exist in one location and begin to exist in another location, but in between those two transitions it wouldn't be, and since from nothing nothing comes, such a movement would be impossible.

    So here we have observations of entities in the world, the empirical fact that there is movement and successive changes, the fact that can successfully refer to items such as tables, chairs, and people.

    It was solved later by Aristotle, who provided what metaphysics we would need to consistently talk about such things. Russell and Descartes had another solution based on mathematical functions, where position of items changes according to a function over time. This is consistent with Aristotle's answer though a little more specific.

    That would be an example of a classical philosophical argument about movement and change. There is an empirical observation, and they proceed then by abductive and deductive reasoning. Coming up with a best explanation metaphysics of why something can be. In this case, Aristotle (and later Russell and Descartes) were able to come up with a much more satisfying metaphysics than Zeno and Parmenides.

    I'm really broadbrushing the discussion here though, I really encourage you to read some classic philosophy. It really broadens your horizon.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 11-30-2019 at 01:22 PM.

  8. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  9. #626
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,199
    Amen (Given)
    4299
    Amen (Received)
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by rogue06 View Post
    What is this of which you speak? Other. Forums?
    I think he may have meant other discussion topics on these forums. A sort of "boiler plate" or FAQ to address common recurring questions and arguments for each of a few different topics.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  10. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.
  11. #627
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,773
    Amen (Given)
    2565
    Amen (Received)
    1867
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post
    It is not. It would only be an example of an example of argument from ignorance, if I used our lack of knowledge to argue for it.
    It’s also an ‘argument from ignorance’ if you use “our lack of knowledge” to dismiss an argument. This is what you are doing when you say: “Most traits we have, cannot be accounted for by natural selection”.

    In fact, most traits, and why they are precisely the way they are, cannot be accounted for by natural selection.
    How can "most traits" be accounted for if not, at bottom, by natural selection?

    This is actually normal science in evolutionary biology. There are many traits that are free to change without it having anything other than negligible effects on our survivability. There's a whole field called neutral evolution, that simply document these features.
    “Neutral evolution” only applies to micro-level organisms. It does NOT apply at the macro-level of genetic variability generated by mutations as they arise within populations.

    An example would be the shape of a maple leaf. There's no precise reason for how its shape has changed over the millenia, except just natural drift of the genes. There is no reason to think that there's an adaptive reason for any particular part of our mental make up, when in fact most features don't have any selective pressures.
    The selective pressures that do NOT reinforce survival (or that reduce the chance of survival) could result in extinction – as has happened millions of times on Earth.

    Oh really?

    What scientific experiment did you perform to establish this, and what peer-reviewed journal did you write it up in?
    The role of science by definition is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” Oxford. This applies to humans as well to every other natural phenomenon. Unless you are arguing that humans are NOT natural phenomena.

    Great, you're finally starting to ask me the right reasons. I might take you up on this later.
    So, stop being patronizing and answer. What DOES matter in an ethical picture, Leonhard, and why does it matter?

    He made statements like "There are objects that move", he based that on empirical observations. And he was interested in what had to antecedently true in order for objects to move. His premise was that objects could move.
    Aristotle’s premise was also that the earth was the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres guiding the motion of Sun, Moon and stars etc. What empirical observations were these based upon?
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  12. #628
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,773
    Amen (Given)
    2565
    Amen (Received)
    1867
    Quote Originally Posted by Leonhard View Post



    In that cause you would be forced to admit "I don't know whether science works or not."
    No. We know science works.

    And how do you know that? What arguments are used to show this? You can't use the success of science, to argue that science says anything about reality for instance only that the results are useful.
    The results of science are useful because they are reality based, (unless you are assuming that reality is non-material and non-natural). If they were not reality based, they would be of no more value than a philosophical argument which cannot be considered reality-based at all.

    Philosophy has its uses but at bottom it remains a strictly academic discipline - useful for religious believers - but unlike science it cannot be verified, nor tested, nor make predictions - whereas scientific beliefs can.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

  13. #629
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,841
    Amen (Given)
    1013
    Amen (Received)
    3109
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    It’s also an ‘argument from ignorance’ if you use “our lack of knowledge” to dismiss an argument.
    Since I didn't do that, its not a an argument from ignorance. We know that most of our features aren't selected for by natural selection. Many are left to freely change over the years due to neutral genetic drift.

    How can "most traits" be accounted for if not, at bottom, by natural selection? ... “Neutral evolution” only applies to micro-level organisms.
    Read more than the first paragraph from Wikipedia next time. And try to read a little more deeply.

    Neutral evolution doesn't apply to "micro-level organisms". Neutral evolution applies to all the micro-changes in our DNA. Most of our alleles have multiple variant copies, and they're all doing pretty much that. 90% of the historical changes to our DNA have no adaptive advantages. They can be demonstrated by combinatorial studies to be almost entirely due to random genetic drift.

    I am not making an argument against natural selection here. Nobody denies that it plays an essential role in describing evolutionary history.

    However, you're claiming, without a good cause as you might think, that various aspects of human culture and human psychology are due to adaptive features. That's not a given at all. Human willingness to sacrifice their lives, for their beloved could easily even be maladaptive, that we've incorporated by exaption. Meaning the feature was already there, and it was adapted to its present state from something else. The reason a maladaptive feature can be present is because features don't exist independently of each other. If we changed in some way in one place, other parts of ourselves would likely change as well.

    The role of science by definition is “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” Oxford.
    So the Oxford dictionary supersedes and precedes Science? You were the one who claimed that science was the only approach we had of knowing anything, and now you're mentioning this magical entity called Oxford? Why should I trust the claims of Oxford over that of science?

    See, what I'm trying to get at here, is that you're using philosophy, whether you like it or not. And you need to do that, even to answer basic questions, such as questions about what science is and what science is actually doing.

    Science, ironically, can't answer those questions.

    So, stop being patronizing
    I will, once you start to show that you have intellectual integrity, that you can admit to being wrong, and that you admit that there's a lot of reading you need to do. Integrity and humility, if you showed either, and stopped with the new atheism bit that got old all the way back 2010, you'd come off as a much better person.

    Otherwise, a discussion about philosophy is wasted on you. And I have better things to do.

    I suggest you hang around the feminists for a spell, try to listen to the Talk Nerdy podcast by Carris Santa Maria, if you're not that much into books. She has a much more positive and humble approach to these things.

    Aristotle’s premise was also that the earth was the center of the universe surrounded by celestial spheres guiding the motion of Sun, Moon and stars etc. What empirical observations were these based upon?
    Uhm... again, I have to ask whether you're reading my posts at all, or whether you can remember anything of the conversation outside of the quotes you create. Because seriously it feels like your mental space is limited to just the quotes you've drawn.

    I'll just requote you the post again

    "I think you have Aristotle confused with Ptolomeus, who used the results of astrography at the time to chart the movements of the planets and drew up arguably the first empirically based model of the solar system.

    I suggest you read the Almagest by Ptolomeus. He speculates that the stars are infinitely far away (though the greek can also be interpreted as just extremely far away). Each chapter of the book is full of astronomical measurements using the admittedly primitive tools at the time.

    The model is wrong, but it was quite empirical."

    As a further point, I'd argue in Ptolomeus defense that he was quite precise in the phenomenology he described. The planets, as he pointed them out, underwent retrograde motion. And he systematized the cataloging of planetary observations.

    Again, for crying out loud Tassman read some books. You don't come off scholarly at all. And if you don't wanna do that, engage with some humility. Anything like that would make you a lot more affable, and people would listen to you more.

    All you're accomplishing on this forum is confirming all the worst stereotypes Christians have about atheists. That's about it.
    Last edited by Leonhard; 12-01-2019 at 05:47 AM.

  14. #630
    tWebber Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,841
    Amen (Given)
    1013
    Amen (Received)
    3109
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    No. We know science works.
    But you can't use science to determine that. So how do you know science works, if you've limited your source of trustworthy knowledge to science?

  15. Amen Teallaura amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •