religion

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, thanks for that, I think? I'm not sure why the definitions of words which are easily looked up and serve to the credit of my last two posts warrant their own post, but in case anyone needs to brush up on vocabulary, there you are.

So what you are implying is that definitions of things are based off of what you want and that common use of the word is invalid even though that it is..... common use. Basically, scientists who disagree with what religion is (or people like you) have some book held in some deep dark cellar that no one will ever find, and they have different definitions for everything, and that what everyone else in the world defines these things as is incorrect.

[paulgiamatti]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by paulgiamatti [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, we believe it is fallible, and falsifiable, which is the mark of anything that is rational and sane.

I'm not saying that you don't... I misread leewong's post. But there are tons of people that believe scientists, doctors, etc... Anyone dealing with higher learning, are infallible. I agree with both sides of this debate, but I think Eliseus is right to say that many treat scientists as modern clergymen issuing divine edicts that are not to be challenged

[Patriam1066]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anyway, nice to have a civil discussion here, that's a first. I'm off to watch Alabama... Roll tide

It's actually been pretty far from civil at some points. I do agree though that is is fun to discuss, even though from the time I've been around, you never can change any minds here, everyone thinks there knowledge is the superior knowledge no matter what evidence you point out. Then (this thread for example), you find yourself repeating the exact same thing several times in the same thread to the exact same person because everyone is just running in circles re-debating stuff that has already been brought up and dismissed, because one side feels the others information is better. Really though, it becomes just such a hassle, for example, I legitimately pointed out in a response how trying to say what God could of done or not is irrelevant because the other side would deny it anyways. The dude literally quoted me supporting that, so it is almost why argue in the first place, it's mostly to not let them have the last word, because I really don't want these ignorant people to leave and think they won some kind of war when they really didn't.

Anyways though, to your first comment, most outbursts to destroy this "civil" attitude have mostly been brought upon this side that thinks God doesn't exist. I would assume though their moral compass is probably a bit off, so it's somewhat expected.

[paulgiamatti]

No, I just to carefully consider what the intellectual majority of people including scholars, authors, scientists, teachers, and yes, even theologians, regard as semantically correct.

It's like when people bring up egalitarianism as an end unto itself rather than a means to an end. Egalitarianism doesn't operate in a void - you can't just take one interpretation of it or one definition of it from a textbook and shoehorn it into the real world. There are more factors at play when considering huge, sweeping ideas like egalitarianism just like there are with every single word in the English lexicon.

A textbook definition isn't direction for application. It's just a definition. That's why dictionaries are constantly updated, refined and adapted to modern society.

[paulgiamatti]

*choose to carefully consider

[mtb tripper]

shut the fuck up man

[paulgiamatti]

I don't think anyone said scientists don't have beliefs. I certainly said that science is not a religion, and that atheism is not a system of belief, but many scientists are indeed theists whose work we'd be much poorer without. As I've said on this topic in other threads, it's not a question of intelligence, but of morality.

[paulgiamatti]

And in my last post, I don't mean to confuse generic "belief" with belief in the supernatural or belief in the suspension of the laws of physics. Just to avoid that pesky over-attribution - everyone has beliefs. Everyone has ideas, and thoughts, or at least I hope by some amount of their own volition they do.

Just like I will not tolerate any making of offhand remarks like "thank god" or "god only knows", or the participation in traditional holidays as suddenly qualifying someone as a believer of a divine dictatorship or the supernatural, I will not allow the word "belief" to be hijacked by religionists in the same way.