|
steinrokkan posted:The argument was that natural science helps in understanding philosophy and theology, not the other way around, you know. Please, enlighten us how. Specifically the connection between the natural sciences and theology.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My math classes went as high a differential equations 2 and I was a nuke minor. Look, I'm as sorry as anyone that the original Robocop franchise flopped but that's no reason to devote that much of your life to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Theology used to be at the top because that was how you avoided getting tortured and your property confiscated by the Church.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Look, I'm as sorry as anyone that the original Robocop franchise flopped but that's no reason to devote that much of your life to it. I was four when robocop came out. I've never actually seen the whole thing. I really should watch it, what with whole it's ultra-violent Christ story thing it has going on. Looking back I really should have gone environmental engineering with my minor anyway. But I wanted to take the modern physics classes, and getting to tour Brookhaven with one of the better professor was a big selling point. The assistant dean taught about half the nuke track stuff, he was ex navy nuke. A bunch of alums worked on the superconducting magnets for the accelerator for the RHIC. We made a system level model of a nuclear reactor with an attached hydrogen generation (using the waste heat) facility in simulink my senior year. Then I basically took a job that had nothing to do at all with any of that (the marine surveying stuff). I haven't done bad for trailer trash. I think one of my classmates should be finishing his PHD at MIT about now, I want to say he was studying how radiation causes the various materials of a reactor to become more brittle over time and how this affects the life span of reactors. Other classmates, hell groomsmen at my wedding, are investment bankers now, Arzy types. I'm entirely serious that my wife's studies were way harder than mine. That's actually the thing that drew me into reading all of her library, and that happened right as the very first time I posted in a religion thread. This all is explainitive of how I think too. A system engineering degree trains one to think methodically and systematically. I can do that. But frankly it's tedious and I get bored with it and honestly I can get a little intellectually lazy. Which I think you know at this point. So what the hell is point of telling you all that. Well what's the critique I keep making. Constructed models are constructed models. A system level model of the freshwater system on a ship, the underlying way of constructing that isn't any different from, how libertarians build their systems, isn't any differnt from how religious apology works, isn't any different from how any particular ideology is constructed. There are assumptions, then the rules of the model, then the methodical development of the model. That's the part that is interesting to me. That assumptions part. That praxeology business is assumptions part, my whole Jesus as the Christ thing is an assumptions part, the criticism of the math is real stuff I made, that is an assumptions part. What they came together to say at Nicaea, that's all assumptions level stuff too. Does that explain the criticism I keep making. I had one of you tell me something along the lines of: You don't get to choose what reality is, we are all in the same reality. That assumption is exactly the same as "We believe in One God" just stated in a different language essentially. And that's point I keep making over and over again. It doesn't matter if you throw out one set of symbolic language for another set of symbolic language if the same basic assumptions are made. And why orthodox Christianity matters, why the traditional doctrines of Christianity are relevant, is that they are a set of assumptions that have really just had the poo poo beaten out of them. Some of them have held up and some of them haven't, and it is useful to be able to look at the entire history of that process.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:So what the hell is point of telling you all that. Well what's the critique I keep making. Constructed models are constructed models. A system level model of the freshwater system on a ship, the underlying way of constructing that isn't any different from, how libertarians build their systems, isn't any different from how religious apology works, isn't any different from how any particular ideology is constructed. Yeah, this is your problem: This isn't true. Libertarians are ironically more a religion than an economic system for the very reason you fail to mention: Praxeology "Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts" - Ludwig Von Mises Libertarians make poo poo up and claim it as a functional system, while ignoring all empirical evidence and the idea of falsification. Their systems depend entirely upon blind faith to an economic model that flies directly in the fact of recorded economic history and empirical evidence. Your models DO NOT ignore experience and falsification, and they ESPECIALLY don't ignore empiricism. Engineers THRIVE on empiricism and experience in order to develop models and test these models prior to constructing a fully fledged system. Even my thesis work with thorium reactors is wholly dependent upon empiricism and established working and proven knowledge. If you think engineering and physics are in ANY way comparable to the 'modeling' of libertarians, I think we've found your problem. You would have to throw out the entire field of engineering and applied physics for anything you said to be true. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Libertarians are ironically more a religion than an economic system for the very reason you fail to mention: Praxeology You're killing me, stop, my sides hurt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:You're killing me, stop. You loving compared Engineering models to Libertarians who practice Praxeology.  BrandorKP posted:stop, my sides hurt. You need to return your degree for a full refund.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Libertarians are ironically more a religion than an economic system for the very reason you fail to mention: Praxeology Who started the libertarianism as religion talk again? Generally speaking it's dumb to argue that an argument is invalid by referencing the validity of said argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:It is not merely lust, but unhinged debauchery, that drives the children of the heretic ungood Tzeentch. Society does not permit this: it punishes the corrupted Blood of the debauched, and all becomes right. If everything is truly the work of Khorne, then why worship Khorne at all? It sounds like I could pretty easily hedge my bets and offer tribute to the Plaguefather Nurgle while still earning favor with Khorne if he turns out to be the one true God. Does Khorne offer rewards to followers who kill in his name, or should I continue worshiping Nurgle while remembering to spill blood in case Khorne is watching?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Who started the libertarianism as religion talk again? quote:A system level model of the freshwater system on a ship, the underlying way of constructing that isn't any different from, how libertarians build their systems, isn't any different from how religious apology works, isn't any different from how any particular ideology is constructed. You compared engineering models (which are functional and capable of predicting outcomes in reality) to libertarianism (which does not produce models capable of predicting outcomes in reality) and then compared both to religious apologism (which is neither capable of producing models nor properly predicting outcomes). And if you don't understand how Libertarianism isn't a religion, you obviously don't have the years of study to criticize it properly BrandorKP posted:Generally speaking it's dumb to argue that an argument is invalid by referencing the validity of said argument. ........the validity of the argument is ENTIRELY hinged upon the validity of the premise of the argument.  http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/tvs.html quote:1. truth: a property of statements, i.e., that they are the case. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Well what's the critique I keep making. Constructed models are constructed models. A system level model of the freshwater system on a ship, the underlying way of constructing that isn't any different from, how libertarians build their systems, isn't any differnt from how religious apology works, isn't any different from how any particular ideology is constructed. There are assumptions, then the rules of the model, then the methodical development of the model. That's the part that is interesting to me. That assumptions part. That praxeology business is assumptions part, my whole Jesus as the Christ thing is an assumptions part, the criticism of the math is real stuff I made, that is an assumptions part. What they came together to say at Nicaea, that's all assumptions level stuff too. Yeah, you're missing the part where scientific inquiry makes predictions, then runs experiments and looks at the evidence to determine whether the assumptions are right. It's really not the same as what you're doing at all. Now, if you want to say that morality is just an assumption, no more valid and provable than religious assumptions, then that's all well and good*. You are completely correct, although in that case if religion is just something we have to decide with our monkey brains to assume and it's completely unfalsifiable then I have to wonder why bother with assuming the religion you want and deriving a morality from there when you could cut out an unnecessary step and just assume the morality you want from the beginning. *praxeology incidentally, does not qualify here because it does make falsifiable predictions that are empirically wrong, but it just denies the validity of evidence and arguably of reality itself
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Christ dude, it was just a dumb joke about the designer drug in Robocop II being called "Nuke," which another police robot ends up accidentally addicted to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:My wife's masters of church history was significantly harder than anything I took. My math classes went as high a differential equations 2 and I was a nuke minor. Her systematic theology classes were definitely harder than my controls classes. But the Catholics, poo poo, that's a whole other world. Some of the Jesuits holy gently caress are they educated, decades, lifetimes, in some cases. Some of them will have a hard science masters, a philosophy masters, and a theology doctorate. Hell some have multiple doctorates. Guys you don't understand, my sister's courses were hard, therefore its totally valid! GUYYSSSSSSS
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Christ dude, it was just a dumb joke about the designer drug in Robocop II being called "Nuke," which another police robot ends up accidentally addicted to. Totally missed that. I really should watch them. Edit: I thought you were being a dick and you weren't. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
CommieGir, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3598750&userid=91236
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Bob James posted:Jesus was a thug in a gang who served on death row. Also, monotheism is boring. I'm only interested in a pantheon of gods that are loving and killing each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Totally missed that. I really should watch them. You should. The two Robocop movies, that is. Because that's totally how many there are, no matter what you may have heard. Anyone claiming more than that exist are lying or on drugs or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:CommieGir, Still a bad argument and extremely poor comparison. So not only do you know about libertarianism, you used your knowledge on it very poorly indeed. That kind of reflects your statement poorly, not cast it into better light. You compared engineering models to Libertarianism. While being well informed that Libertarianism is a bunch of racist bunk AND all while claiming to know how engineering models function. How is this supposed to make your statement CLEARER? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:CommieGir, Haha I can't believe a college gave you a degree. Tell me more about these koch brothers. These are all very "Shallow but sound deep" points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You compared engineering models to Libertarianism. Of course I did, because they (Libertarians) do: "As an engineer, I understood that the natural world operated according to fixed laws. Through my studies, I came to realize that there were, like wise, laws that govern human well being." "CommieGIR" posted:Libertarians are ironically more a religion You even used ironic. Tell me again why my own argument makes me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Still a bad argument and extremely poor comparison. So not only do you know about libertarianism, you used your knowledge on it very poorly indeed. I do not value your contributions to my thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:I do not value your contributions to my thread. Because I'm not Catholic, right? I'm a sociopath because I refuse to accept your claim to knowing the one true religion. BrandorKP posted:Of course I did, because they (Libertarians) do: You wrote an entire thread about the Kochs and Libertarians and you don't know why this is not what they claim? They'd have to accept empiricism in order for them to understand the very fixed laws they claim to use to analyze the natural world. BrandorKP posted:You even used ironic. Tell me again why my own argument makes me wrong. Because libertarians operate under the ideas that empiricism and historicity does is not a valid way to analyze their claims. They demand you take implicit faith in their system that it will work when multiple claims they have made directly fly in the face of what we know about them. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:If everything is truly the work of Khorne, then why worship Khorne at all? It sounds like I could pretty easily hedge my bets and offer tribute to the Plaguefather Nurgle while still earning favor with Khorne if he turns out to be the one true God. Does Khorne offer rewards to followers who kill in his name, or should I continue worshiping Nurgle while remembering to spill blood in case Khorne is watching? Khorne is not the weak usurper, YHWH. He is not insecure. You think he cares for your pitiful thoughts? Arrogance. You think you have a choice in His worship, in partaking in His glory? Foolish. Nothing could be further from the truth. Khorne does not need you. You are nothing more than His tool, a plaything in His game. The rage you feel, the anger in you, the urge to fight? The wars your tax dollars pay for, the slaughter of the animals you eat, who die in steaming pools of mixed and miasmic Blood? THAT is Khorne. THAT, not kneeling and sniveling and begging, nor submitting meekly to the affronts of others, is how one communes with a true God. Blood is Faith, and we are all slaves of Blood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
You know what is a very difficult and complex theory? The geocentric model of the solar system. It's got epicycles on epicycles to explain retrograde motion, and a gradual spiralling spherical solar orbit that looks like the windings on a ball of yarn to predict the changing length of days. The mathematics are absurdly difficult, much more so than Kepler's model which any undergrad can use. That proves it must be true, because only the most dedicated students can understand it! Ditto astrology, there are so many variables of planets and stars and houses that go into determining your future based on the exact second you first poked your head out of a vagina, and the minutes and seconds and thirds of the latitude and longitude of your birth. It's just so difficult that even learned masters regularly gently caress it all up, making it much harder and therefore more rigourous than your pansy-rear end astronomy. But I guess if you're too dumb and lazy to understand astrology, you can go into physics or astronomy or some other weak-rear end easy field for slow kids.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You wrote an entire thread about the Kochs and Libertarians and you don't know why this is not what they claim? Apparently literally quoting what a specific person says does not in fact, have anything at all to do with what that specific person claims. CommieGIR posted:Because libertarians operate under the ideals that empiricism and historicity does is not a valid way to analyze their claims. They demand you take implicit faith in their system that it will work when multiple claims they have made directly fly in the face of what we know about them. I get it, you like my arguments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Please, enlighten us how. Specifically the connection between the natural sciences and theology. How could there not be a connection? Evolution changes the way we understand creation while modern physics radically changes how we conceptualize time. Even softer sciences like history and anthropology can provide new insights into scripture and theology.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Miltank posted:How could there not be a connection? Evolution changes the way we understand creation while modern physics radically changes how we conceptualize time. Even softer sciences like history and anthropology can provide new insights into scripture and theology. You're right, learning things will often debunk bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:How could there not be a connection? Evolution changes the way we understand creation while modern physics radically changes how we conceptualize time. Even softer sciences like history and anthropology can provide new insights into scripture and theology. That is kind of a one way street. The concepts found there are not in turn being used to change religious concepts. Creationism in Theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Darwin's Origin of Species or the resulting Theory of Evolution, nor does Theological argument have any bearing on the theory of time and space. BrandorKP posted:I get it, you like my arguments. You like making stuff up to make an argument, I get it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Haha I can't believe a college gave you a degree. Tell me more about these koch brothers. These are all very "Shallow but sound deep" points. People seem weirdly bitter in this thread when you consider that God is dead and all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is kind of a one way street. The concepts found there are not in turn being used to change religious concepts. Creationism in Theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Darwin's Origin of Species or the resulting Theory of Evolution, nor does Theological argument have any bearing on the theory of time and space. How are religious concepts unchanged by science? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you mean the opposite? That theological concepts have no bearing on the scientific?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That is kind of a one way street. The concepts found there are not in turn being used to change religious concepts. Creationism in Theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Darwin's Origin of Species or the resulting Theory of Evolution, nor does Theological argument have any bearing on the theory of time and space. I'm not sure I agree with this, Creationism (in its current form) at least seems to be very much a reaction to the Theory of Evolution, or there wouldn't be a need for so much energy in challenging and opposing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Ted_Haggard posted:I'm not sure I agree with this, Creationism (in its current form) at least seems to be very much a reaction to the Theory of Evolution, or there wouldn't be a need for so much energy in challenging and opposing it. Its a reaction, not an integration or acceptance. Creationism for the most part existed prior to the Theory of Evolution, it just became more vitriolic as science accepted evolution over other forms. Miltank posted:How are religious concepts unchanged by science? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, and you mean the opposite? That theological concepts have no bearing on the scientific? Theological concepts have no bearing on scientific, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Ted_Haggard posted:I'm not sure I agree with this, Creationism (in its current form) at least seems to be very much a reaction to the Theory of Evolution, or there wouldn't be a need for so much energy in challenging and opposing it. Right, when and why were "The Fundamentals" written and what else are they reacting to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Right, when and why were "The Fundamentals" written and what else are they reacting to? Creationism existed prior to The Fundamentals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
When did it become a wide spread and significant movement?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:When did it become a wide spread and significant movement? When people could actively question human creation thanks to Evolution. Regardless, Creationism existed prior to evolution, it was just the de facto standard. Just because it didn't have a name prior, does not mean it was not around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its a reaction, not an integration or acceptance. Creationism for the most part existed prior to the Theory of Evolution, it just became more vitriolic as science accepted evolution over other forms. Fundamentalism is a reaction to modernity, yes. It is not, as you are no doubt aware, the only religious response to the theory of evolution. Theology can have an effect on the natural sciences by restricting or suggesting subjects of the scientists' studies. Theology plays the same role as philosophy in this sense. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:[citation needed] Go talk to them online and ask them about gamergate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Go talk to them online and ask them about gamergate. It will be challenging to get "them" into one conversation but who am I kidding anecdotal evidence is KING around here baby!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Go talk to them online and ask them about gamergate. How appealing
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:06
|
|