flat earth vs ""'science'""

[notyou2]

Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe.

Wait one second. Are you saying that I have stated that the Pope is wrong on "Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe?"

That's impossible. I don't even know Pope Francis quotes on "Adam and Eve, evolution and the creation of the universe."

Pope Francis said it's not true and the bible should not be taken literally. You said "bullshit".

[DoomYoshi]

tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

So here's a question. If something is "false" hockey and is in fact baseball, can you say you are going to a hockey game at Fenway park?

Similarly, I spent much time trying to convince universalschiro and AslantheKing that creationism has no Christian precedent before the 1800s. Therefore, it is from "false" Christianity and I could just as well call it hockey.

So under your definition, I could just as easily say your cousin's beliefs are rooted in hockey, could I not?

People hold beliefs because of social groups, not because of any roots at all.

What the fuck are you going on about?

Here is the conversation you had with tzor:
"It's religion"
"It's false religion"
"It's still religion".

Here is the sample conversation I derived from it:
"It's hockey"
"It's baseball"
"It's still hockey"

[Serbia]

tzor, you're a presumptuous fool, and I do not say that lightly. Hate religion? You obviously do not know me.

I'd love for you to look my cousin directly in the eye and try to tell him that his belief in a flat earth has nothing to do with religion. That's a debate you can never win. In fact, sir, how dare you question another's faith. You truly are a fool.

So here's a question. If something is "false" hockey and is in fact baseball, can you say you are going to a hockey game at Fenway park?

Similarly, I spent much time trying to convince universalschiro and AslantheKing that creationism has no Christian precedent before the 1800s. Therefore, it is from "false" Christianity and I could just as well call it hockey.

So under your definition, I could just as easily say your cousin's beliefs are rooted in hockey, could I not?

People hold beliefs because of social groups, not because of any roots at all.

What the fuck are you going on about?

Here is the conversation you had with tzor:
"It's religion"
"It's false religion"
"It's still religion".

Here is the sample conversation I derived from it:
"It's hockey"
"It's baseball"
"It's still hockey"

That's what I thought - you misread my conversation as well. I am NOT saying that in order to believe in a flat earth, one must believe in some sort of god. That has never been my point. So your opening line of "it's religion" is a fallacy and not what I'm saying. What I have said is that for SOME, including a man I know personally, THEIR belief IS rooted in A religion. That statement is not a commentary on anyone's religion, nor is it a commentary on the legitimacy of anyone's religion. To simplify the conversation as you did is doesn't make sense, and is similar to what tzor did. He tried to use an example of pseudo-science to argue against what he sees as pseudo-religion. Problem is that religion and science are not the same thing. Science is science; there is either good, true science, or there is bad, false science, at which point it is NOT science. Religion, ultimately, is down to the individual. Within Christianity itself, there are many different ACCEPTED sects; some, such as Catholicism, are very different from the others to the point of practically being a different religion. And then within Catholicism itself, you'll find individuals with different beliefs. Yet, it's all religion.

Your first breakdown should read:

"it can be rooted in religion"
"it's false religion"
"it still can be rooted in 'religion'"

Hockey, by definition, is not baseball. It can be observed and defined. Your post is illogical. You would have been much more clever to use the following:

"It's a girl"
"It's a boy"
"It's still a girl"

[DoomYoshi]

I think you have it backwards.

Science can not have falsehood because science describes the material world which can not be described in terms of "facts". There are no trivia questions about the material world. All the "scientific" trivia questions are about metadata about the material world. The value of c is not a description of a fact, but a description of a representation of a material reality (confusingly, also called a fact). I think this is what Plato meant when he spoke of forms... I finally get it, and Wittgenstein. Facts can only be verified in a social construct because of the limitations of language.

I can not prove verbs or disprove nouns in a material sense. Science disproves verbs and proves nouns. Therefore any statement that you make can not be ascribed to the material world, as described by science.

Religion, because it uses a closed set of inputs can be verified as true or false in a way that science never can. This is why fringe scientific theories remain alive for much longer than they should.

[tzor]

Both science and religion rely on a base set of axioms, without which it is impossible to logically proceed. They are assumed to be true, even though they might not be, in fact true. The parallel postulate is a very good example of this. Euclidean geometry requires it. Now we know non Euclidean geometry is not only possible, it's how the universe is structured.

Religion tends to have a larger set of axioms, which are not just made up on the spot but claimed to be "revealed."

[Metsfanmax]

And when you say something is "rooted in science" that doesn't make it right either. Remember Phrenology?

No, none of us remember phrenology, because none of us were alive in the early 1800s. If your best example of science going astray is from the time before the germ theory of disease was accepted, that speaks volumes.

[DoomYoshi]

Remember the Great Recession?

[Serbia]

Religion, because it uses a closed set of inputs can be verified as true or false in a way that science never can. This is why fringe scientific theories remain alive for much longer than they should.

Are you, or have you ever been, religious? This statement would suggest to me that you are not. If you were, you would know there are many grey areas within religion.

[DoomYoshi]

The gray areas are because people change the canon. If God is absolute than there can be absolute truth, some people may just not know it.

It's like this: I can describe Hogwarts more accurately (because everything in the books is canon and therefore unquestionable truth) than I can Cambridge but I can describe Cambridge with more precision (since it exists in the material realm I can generate reams of data). Unless I allow fan-fiction or the canon lacks continuity. The same thing is true of the Bible. Imagine it's a work about a fictional planet. Then one can 100% accurately describe that fictional planet using the Bible since all the information that is or can be known about the planet is contained within it. Instead of a planet, replace the will of God and one can understand that there is absolute truth in the Bible (at least in its own terms, I understand many reject the authority of the Bible). The people who don't understand biblical truth haven't studied the Bible enough.

[Serbia]

The gray areas are because people change the canon. If God is absolute than there can be absolute truth, some people may just not know it.

It's like this: I can describe Hogwarts more accurately (because everything in the books is canon and therefore unquestionable truth) than I can Cambridge but I can describe Cambridge with more precision (since it exists in the material realm I can generate reams of data). Unless I allow fan-fiction or the canon lacks continuity. The same thing is true of the Bible. Imagine it's a work about a fictional planet. Then one can 100% accurately describe that fictional planet using the Bible since all the information that is or can be known about the planet is contained within it. Instead of a planet, replace the will of God and one can understand that there is absolute truth in the Bible (at least in its own terms, I understand many reject the authority of the Bible). The people who don't understand biblical truth haven't studied the Bible enough.

Is it good to wear shorts? Or is it better to not wear shorts? Is it possible for an unmarried man to masturbate without sinning? Should the Sabbath be observed from sunset to sunset, or from midnight to midnight? And if sunset, how do you define sunset? When having "communion", or "remembrance", according to one's preference, should wine be used, or avoided? Is alcohol ever permissible? What about tobacco products? Are modern conveniences something good to be used and thankful for, or are they distractions that should be avoided? These questions are not flippant either; all are questions that my family and our "church" dealt with growing up, or that my friends are still dealing with today.

There is a lot of grey area. Each individual shall pick a path which seems right to them. It doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "wrong".

[DoomYoshi]

The Bible is pretty clear on this matter (except on the shorts, I will get back to you on that one):

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:

“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’”[b]

12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. 14 I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. 15 If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.[c]

EDIT: On the matter of shorts, I'm going to refer to one of my favorite extrabiblical sources, the epistle to Diognetus:

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly paradoxical method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as tourists. As citizens, they share in all things with other, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. They love all men, and are persecuted by all. They are unknown and condemned; they are put to death, and restored to life. They are poor, yet make many rich; they in lack of all things, and yet abound in all; they are dishonoured, and yet in their very dishonor are glorified. They are evil spoken of, and yet are justified; they are revile, and bless; they are insulted, and repay the insult with honor; they do good, yet are punished as evil-doers. When punished, they rejoice as if quickened into life; they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred.

In summary
Shorts
masturbation
alcohol and cigarettes

[Serbia]

My friends, and yes, I myself, grew up not wearing shorts, because they show too much skin and are immodest. They may be ok for most, but they were not ok for us. Yet that choice did not make us any greater or less Christian. It is not black or white, which is my point.

Regardless, this has gone way off on a tangent - we should all get back to laughing at people who believe the earth is flat. Those guys are dumb! lulz

[DoomYoshi]

Agreed!

[tzor]

No, none of us remember phrenology, because none of us were alive in the early 1800s.

Would you have prefered it if I used "Global Warming" instead?

[Metsfanmax]

No, none of us remember phrenology, because none of us were alive in the early 1800s.

Would you have prefered it if I used "Global Warming" instead?

Oh right, I forgot that for some reason you have an opinion on the validity of climate science.

[tzor]

Oh right, I forgot that for some reason you have an opinion on the validity of climate science.

Climate science is quite valid, even though it is still in its early childhood. I have an opinion on the validity of forcing disparate temperature models into a "industrial age" CO2 curve and coming up with half baked socialist programs which would actually have no chance in hell of actually making their own proposed targets and even if they did would have zero impact on the global climate.

[riskllama]

Oh right, I forgot that for some reason you have an opinion on the validity of climate science.

Climate science is quite valid, even though it is still in its early childhood. I have an opinion on the validity of forcing disparate temperature models into a "industrial age" CO2 curve and coming up with half baked socialist programs which would actually have no chance in hell of actually making their own proposed targets and even if they did would have zero impact on the global climate.

ah. soo...can't win, don't try?

[Metsfanmax]

I have an opinion on the validity of forcing disparate temperature models into a "industrial age" CO2 curve

Yes, that engineering degree you earned 30 years ago definitely qualifies you to have this opinion. tzor knows best, folks.

[tzor]

ah. soo...can't win, don't try?

No, the opposite in fact. Stop doing the things that won't work. Try doing the things that will work. There are a ton of environmental things we can be doing right now to help billions of people. In the United States, for example, we have more damage to the environment by nitrogen dumping industrial farms. My own town had to add an incentive to the bunker crop which is very large this year (normally a good thing) but when driven to the local rivers (an Island is not known for rivers with oxygen replenishing waterfalls) find very low oxygen regions made even worse by bacteria feeding on the nitrogen runoff from the farms and old fashioned septic systems.

Water purification is another problem. We need to develop strong and inexpensive systems to turn bad water into drinkable water.

Slash and burn still impacts a large section of third world rainforests.

Mining for the lithium in lithium ion hybrid vehicles causes more environmental damage than coal mining. Whole mountains are clear cut for the metal.

Almost every so called "Green" energy source causes more environmental damage than it is supposed to solve. Wind power on land kills birds; in the sea the noise can kill whales. Solar power is still made in environmentally unfriendly ways, and other more friendly methods result in tons of cooked birds.

What ever happened to the old fashioned way to lower CO2 ... plant more trees? (Oh that's right, trees grow so tall they start to cover the rooftops and reduce household solar power generation.)

[tzor]

Yes, that engineering degree you earned 30 years ago definitely qualifies you to have this opinion. tzor knows best, folks.

It's physics, actually. The motto of R.P.I. is "knowledge and thoroughness." It pays to have both, you know. The former these days tends to be fake and the later tends to be forgotten.

[Metsfanmax]

Yes, that engineering degree you earned 30 years ago definitely qualifies you to have this opinion. tzor knows best, folks.

It's physics, actually. The motto of R.P.I. is "knowledge and thoroughness." It pays to have both, you know. The former these days tends to be fake and the later tends to be forgotten.

Yes, and when it comes to climate science, you have more knowledge and thoroughness than people who have PhD's and do it for a living every day, because you read Anthony Watts' blog, yes?

I mean, I'm sure you'll come back and say that they have an incentive to see what they want so they keep getting grant funding, and then I'll question whether you think physicists made up the Higgs boson to get funding for the LHC, and then you'll issue a non sequitur about how the solutions to global warming won't work anyway, and we'll be right back where we started, so let's just skip all that I guess, because saxitoxin is really getting a stiffy over all these quantum mechanics posts.

[Symmetry]

Oh right, I forgot that for some reason you have an opinion on the validity of climate science.

Climate science is quite valid, even though it is still in its early childhood. I have an opinion on the validity of forcing disparate temperature models into a "industrial age" CO2 curve and coming up with half baked socialist programs which would actually have no chance in hell of actually making their own proposed targets and even if they did would have zero impact on the global climate.

Hmm, as per usual with your posts, you're starting from a scientific perspective, and quickly showing that you're more a politician playing with science.

I would like to see you dial things back a notch or two, personally. Clearly, at some point you were not a gullible schill for the sources you cite here. At some point you took a critical approach, devoid of cognitative dissonance.

I'd like to see that side of you return. It's clearly within you,.

[tzor]

Yes, and when it comes to climate science, you have more knowledge and thoroughness than people who have PhD's and do it for a living every day, because you read Anthony Watts' blog, yes?

Anthony who?

What about all the people with PhD's (If you really understood what a damn PhD was you would understand how stupid you are. PhD is a Doctorate of Philosophy in a particular science. It doesn't mean SUPER NERD.) who also do it for a living every day who dispute the so called evidence for man made climate change.

Forbes - Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

Why here is a Wikipedia list of all the scientists "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming."

The above links contain no references to any "Anthony Watts." i mean really who is Watts? Never heard of Watts. Doesn't light my bulb.

[tzor]

Hmm, as per usual with your posts, you're starting from a scientific perspective, and quickly showing that you're more a politician playing with science.

Politicians playing with science is what the entire Global Warming scam is. What political gain do I get from my position? (Apart from the "politics" of having your power go out for most of the week as it does in Venezuela, but I'm sure I could buy a solar panel system before the post global warming economy completely collapses.) I'm not earning my living off of research grants in the subject, one way or the other.

But somehow I'm playing politics and they are not.

Fascinating.

but

Illogical.

Oh wait, that's Liberal ... nevermind.

[riskllama]

that's about what, tzor? 100 or so scientists who've been bought off? try harder, man.