Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
for Modi:
1. Employers might not want to hire a nutcase.
2. Religious discrimination is not just not believing in science or questioning facts. You are bringing in a separate set of beliefs.
3. "Theory of evolution" is a special topic and has been into a religious issue.
Obviously if people believe you are a nutcase, then negative outcomes can befall on you. This is especially so if a person brings religion in and strongly advocates a particular belief in direct opposition to some widely held scientific fact. Science is open to debate, but not to illogical or unprovable reasonings.
For example I can say the Earth is only 10 million years old. And when challenged, I just say it is because it is. This is not a debate. But instead let's say I found a series of ancient writings that detailed Day 200 to Day 250. Other scientific methods date the Day 200 writings as 2 million years old and Day 250 as only 1000 years old. Now I actually have something to backup my claim that the Earth is only 10 million years old. | The "punishment" for not "believing" in science was not based on any scientific "belief system".
The real issue there would probably be that the University believes that anyone who doesn't accept the scientific theorem of Evolution might do a good job of teaching it to students. "Intelligent design" has been repeatedly shown to have no scientific basis. If one is supposed to be teaching biology in a modern university, Evolution is a theorem accepted by the scientific community at large and should be taught. If a Biology professor is suspected of being likely to refuse to teach Evolution, an important basis of modern Biology, then it is understandable that they may be thought to be an unsuitable candidate for such a position.
That was the result of a court action and the bias in those who were responsible for choosing the most suitable candidate for the position. However given the history of religious institutions teaching "Intelligent Design" as a scientific theorem, when it is not. No-one should be surprised that people who might be suspected of failing to teach an actual scientific theorem are considered less desirable when appointing a candidate to a position teaching the science of biology to students.
The decision was not derived from any scientific "laws". It was simply the result of people making a decision based on their personal bias. The correct decision would have been to make the appointment (assuming the individual was the best candidate in all other regards) and then assess their performance. If they failed to teach the course correctly then they could be dismissed due to poor performance of their required duties.
Science had nothing to do with it. It was simply the result of personal bias.
This is exactly the kind of disingenuous "proof" that Modi uses on a regular basis.
Grunge | Science is open to debate, but not to illogical or unprovable reasonings.
Oh is it now?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIu2rA0yd9s
I suggest you take a look at this^^ video. Then try to convince yourself that this isn't a man-made structure.
J Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, famously came out and said " There is no mafia." Really now? We all knew there was but because this man had entrenched himself at his position, he kept his job and we all had to pretend there wasn't a mafia. He WAS the expert, wasn't he?
Science refuses to deal with the reality of Yonaguni because it doesn't fit with their world view and explanation of the date of advanced civilization. So we are to imagine that the ocean carved this monolith out of rock in right angles? If it were indeed naturally made, the structure would have had to began like it is now to account for the constant rate of erosion.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ruinas_yonaguni_4.htm
You can believe whatever you wish but that is a man-made structure. I have two eyes and construction experience and that's enough for me. | for Grunge:
I'm sorry but your science has become your religion. It's not my problem, mate.
I would also say you are a zealot as much as I am. Again, one can admit it, and the other pretends it isn't true.
Ever see Dawkins get nasty when debating Intelligent Design? Zealots do that. | So we are to imagine that the ocean carved this monolith out of rock in right angles?
Maybe it did.
Maybe God did it.
Maybe Moses did it.
Maybe some aliens did it a long time ago.
Maybe it's not even there, and some future science would explain it as something else. | Maybe it's not even there, and some future science would explain it as something else.
You were talking about nutcases? I see. | From the video referenced by Modi - "Scientists are now investigating..."
Once again, sometimes the bias of individuals can delay science. But eventually efforts will be made to understand the phenomenon you reference.
Interestingly J Edgar Hoover was Presbyterian, one of many Christianity variants. Does that mean I should claim that he was denying the mafia because he was a Christian? Is his statement regarding the Mafia based on science or his religious beliefs?
It is likely he made such a statement because of his personal priorities. He did not want to engage his efforts in trying to clean up the Mafia, choosing instead to focus on other pursuits for the FBI to focus on. "There is no Mafia" is simply a statement of his internal justification for why he did not pursue organised crime.
Also see Cognitive Dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) which has also been said to relate to how people can justify continued belief after being fooled into believing an "end of the world" that hasn't happened.
Another example of Modi's disingenuous "proofs"?
Grunge | for Grunge:
I noticed you mentioned oil companies a few pages back and I know they are a favorite target of leftists like yourself.
So Mr. Grunge, stop being a hypocrite and disconnect from society because you use all the products the oil companies produce. Oh but you can't so that, can you? But you can continue to bash them while enjoying the fruits of their labor, right?
Same with people spouting about overpopulation. Why don't they kill themselves if they really believed it? Because as usual the OTHER guy is the problem, not them
Same as Islamic extremist leaders. They tell their followers to blow themselves up but THEY don't volunteer themselves do they?
Disingenuous? Indeed you are. | Sure I mentioned Oil Companies. I use many products that are derived from Petroleum products, just as almost everyone in the world does. Just as you do.
I'm "enjoying the fruit of their labour" because currently it is the most economic alternative.
However Oil Companies, like the Tobbaco companies before them, actively suppress (to the best of their ability) research and development of reasonable alternatives to their product. This is one of many factors that currently makes such alternatives too expensive.
I don't intrinsically object to using their products, but I *do* object to the active inhibiting of technology that could provide reasonably costed alternatives that I could choose instead.
Misrepresenting the other side again Modi? Seen it time and again. It is, after all, your most commonly used tactic.
Grunge | for Grunge:
Not at all, you know very well your side of the aisle and what your platforms are.
Now you have given a reasonable response because I called you on it, nothing more.
In fact, can you still not admit that you are only here to attack me?
Syrian saw right through your game as do others but you go on pretending to be an honest concerned citizen if that makes you happy.
We both know you dislike me because I support Israel, maybe even because I am a Jew but I won't go that far. Please come to terms with yourself and stop the charade. You are fooling nobody but yourself.
Leftists LOVE to say they are all for free speech, don't they? In fact one of the quotes they love is " I may not agree with you, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." Or something along those lines.
Reality is far from the nonsense they speak.
Watch as college liberals sign a petition to ban conservatives from the radio and TV, while saying they are for free speech.
They soothe their consciences by saying " yeah, its hate speech we want to ban." How convenient that those who disagree with them are guilty of hate speech. LOL, we deal with these hypocrites all day long so you are nothing new to me Grunge.
Enjoy the show :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaqB_EGDLVg
Hilarious hypocrisy at its best! | for Modi:
Maybe if conservatives weren't always trying to cover up there dirty actions with pretty words, then liberals wouldn't want them to shut up. | about science and beliefs:
Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.
The first are statements of observations, such as "this is a white swan." Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They are equivalent to a propositional calculus statement of the form: There exists an x such that x is a swan, and x is white.
The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as "all swans are white". Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws? How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
do read the entire article, and all you can about Karl Popper | One important aspect of Kuhn's paradigms is that the paradigms are incommensurable, meaning two paradigms cannot be reconciled with each other because they cannot be subjected to the same common standard of comparison. That is, no meaningful comparison between them is possible without fundamental modification of the concepts that are an intrinsic part of the paradigms being compared. This way of looking at the concept of "paradigm" creates a paradox of sorts, since competing paradigms are in fact constantly being measured against each other. (Nonetheless, competing paradigms are not fully intelligible solely within the context of their own conceptual frameworks.) For this reason, paradigm as a concept in the philosophy of science might more meaningfully be defined as a self-reliant explanatory model or conceptual framework. This definition makes it clear that the real barrier to comparison is not necessarily the absence of common units of measurement, but an absence of mutually compatible or mutually intelligible concepts. Under this system, a new paradigm which replaces an old paradigm is not necessarily better, because the criteria of judgment are controlled by the paradigm itself, and by the conceptual framework which defines the paradigm and gives it its explanatory value.
from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm
do read the entire article, and all you can of Thomas Kuhn work. | A scientific revolution occurs, according to Kuhn, when scientists encounter anomalies which cannot be explained by the universally accepted paradigm within which scientific progress has thereto been made. The paradigm, in Kuhn's view, is not simply the current theory, but the entire worldview in which it exists, and all of the implications which come with it. It is based on features of landscape of knowledge that scientists can identify around them. There are anomalies for all paradigms, Kuhn maintained, that are brushed away as acceptable levels of error, or simply ignored and not dealt with.
are you following along?
TL;DR version:
the scientific database, at any given point in time, relies in a belief system that envolves not only what is considered a "scientific truth", but also a vision on what is truth, how to achieve it, and how should the world work" - something we could call an "epistemic system".
more about this in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
don't think science gives us the truth. it doesn't. | Exactly Syrian. Science doesn't give us absolute answers. Science gives us the best available answer. It doesn't promise perfection.
We, as humans feel the need to be in control. Religion is very good at giving absolute answers and giving us the illusion of control.
Praying for someone to get better from cancer doesn't work as well as chemo. If prayer worked, why don't people pray for an amputee's limbs to grow back?
I'm much happier that an engineer employed scientific principals to build a bridge, then throw some concrete and steel together and pray it stays up. | Glad you checked out my character page Modi.
It's getting a bit tiresome with you claiming leftists do this, atheist do that and thus I hold those opinions, when I know I don't.
Free speech is critical, but not in the over the top context of being able to say whatever you want wherever you want. For example. Westboro Church that goes to funerals of gay people and soldiers and protest is unacceptable. They could easily get there message across in many other forums, so in my opinion their free speech is not being overly curtailed. The Supreme Court thought otherwise sadly.
I think no groups should be banned. Individual members when they do something illegal should be punished to the full extent of the law, but just like free speech, the right to free association is critical. From the IRA, KKK, NRA, Black Panthers, whoever.
Law's are in place already. When group that spout hate do a hateful act, jail the members. Hate speech laws are unnecessary.
You accuse people of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is when the turn the other cheek crowd do Crusades (medieval and the Afghanistan Crusade), Inquisitions, Witch Hunts, murdering Doctors, need I go on? The book was written at a time when the Jews and Christians were weak. As soon as they got power they became the usual ruthless murdering pricks that have ruled empires all through history.
I'm not saying that they didn't need to do so. That doesn't stop it being hypocrisy. | 1)Praying for someone to get better from cancer doesn't work as well as chemo. If prayer worked, why don't people pray for an amputee's limbs to grow back?
2)I'm much happier that an engineer employed scientific principals to build a bridge, then throw some concrete and steel together and pray it stays up.
1) That's what people would do if there would be only an earth life. God wants to prepare us for our future, so people don't "use" him just to have a happy life on earth, but to let Him prepare them.
2)You are bringing together the ephemeral life with the eternal one. You don't pray for your RAM to grow from 4GB to 8GB, not because God couldn't do it (If he made all the metals and our intelligence, He could do that), but because it's unnecessary.
This is my opinion about these. | | 1. But people do pray for divine intervention while on Earth. The point I'm making is that if it really is god intervening, why don't people pray for the impossible (the limb growing back) instead of just praying for the improbable (Cancer being cured)? | for Barbarian-Fishy:
Checked out your character page? Let me see what you are going on about.
Ahahaha you think I picked your Voltaire quote from your page? Sorry son but ya just ain't that interesting.
No, I hear Michael Savage say it a lot when criticizing leftists and the garbage they spew.
I really don't care what you are getting tired of, mate. I'll let you know if I ever do.
You are a follower of Grunge and I told you that before. I think you actually have a real shot at seeing the light. You need to get away from Grunge though, because he has the blackest of hearts. I really don't think he can change but you never know.
As for crusades and such, you won't catch me defending the RCC in this lifetime.
I can also read a book about science and proclaim myself a scientist. Does that mean I am one? No. Just the same as the crusaders. They took the title of Christian but their fruits showed they were just murderers.
Sort of like the Atheists Stalin and Mau last century that your side likes to romance.
Check out Mike Savage sometime. I'm pretty much just like him, only I could split your head open when I got tired of talking. He's much too tiny to do that :P | Modi, coming to you with a mindset from post 187:
2 Timothy 2:23
then consider this thread the 'house'
Luke 10: 5-12 (focus on 10-11)
nuf said?
Beyond that, I think this thread has served its purpose... |
<<|<|6|7|8|9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|>|>>Back to topics list
|
