Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

HAARP

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:36pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,141 posts

Moderator

Ignore?  Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

This is not how you interpret and debunk articles; you would fail right out of College with that attitude.

You read the premise; read the evidence that backs up the premise; read the data and studies that support the evidence.

Afterwards, you contrast this with the current beliefs you have. Just how much evidence did this new article have? Was it logically sound? Was it acknowledged by many peer-reviewers? Were they accredited with their professions?

How credible is this, compared to the credibility of what your current beliefs? Was yours acknowledged by many accredited peer-reviewers?

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 4:54pm

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

This is not how you interpret and debunk articles; you would fail right out of College with that attitude.

I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol

How credible is this,

You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 5:08pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol

This may be a game website forum, but you're arguing about life issues. That's a serious topic.

You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.

The church IS a credible source...on its own theology and doctrine. Not on conspiracy theories, of all things!

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 6:09pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,141 posts

Moderator

You see, I, unlike you guys, find the church to be a credible source.

This is a glaring issue and here's why: Science is Mundane; Religion is Spiritual.

One cannot debunk the other.

While Science cannot use evidence (and will never have the evidence) to debunk the existence of a god, Religion cannot use faith or religious text to debunk scientific material, like Evolution, Climatology, and Physics (because no amount of religious text or faith can disprove the Mundane).

It's because these two separate realms cannot be used against one another.

While Science can use geological and physiological evidence to debunk the stories of Noah and Adam and Eve, Religion can in turn use religious text and faith to philosophically dispute wars and Abortion.

The unfortunate advantage here is that Mundane controls the realm of the entire universe, while Spirituality controls the realm of Ideas.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 6:31pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,254 posts

Knight

I think I'll take college a little more seriously than a game website forum lol

This is a forum of logic, it's suppose to come naturally to you. Everything you say is illogical. So if you have to take a forum seriously there is a problem. A forum is suppose to be a breeze, school is for seriousness.

The church IS a credible source...on its own theology and doctrine. Not on conspiracy theories, of all things!

Note how he said in it's own theology. Not to mention, church supports government. It doesn't defy it. You do, but it does not.

Religion cannot use faith or religious text to debunk scientific material, like Evolution, Climatology, and Physics (because no amount of religious text or faith can disprove the Mundane).

Exactly. Not to mention, it was knowledge of gravities effects that helped in the modern rocket age. The rocket would have come down eventually had a scientist not noticed that all things come down, unless a massive amount of thrust was needed to keep it traveling.

Religion did not support this, science did. I agree with Freakenstein on this. Mundane controls the realm of the entire universe, while spirituality controls the realm of ideas.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 6:34pm

Minotaur55

Minotaur55

1,254 posts

Knight

Not to mention, church supports government.

Sorry, that was a typo. Religion supports government. Church is a vague and irrelevant term.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 7:43pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,676 posts

Knight

Ignore?  Well I see it, realize it's wrong to me, and then ignore it.

Wrong to you? There is not wrong to you. Something is either true or not.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 7:58pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

Something is either true or not.

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 8:10pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.

Not so. I actually got into an argument with my teacher years ago, because she said I was a 'black and white thinker.'

More than one thing can be true, but something is always either true or false. Even opinions fall into this - it's true someone likes something better than another, while it may be objectively false that it is actually 'better.' Proof? Why do we have judges in contests relating to opinion? Because those people have experience and can make a better judgement that is 'more true' or 'better' than another.

It's only black and white on the surface.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 8:38pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

More than one thing can be true, but something is always either true or false. Even opinions fall into this - it's true someone likes something better than another, while it may be objectively false that it is actually 'better.' Proof? Why do we have judges in contests relating to opinion? Because those people have experience and can make a better judgement that is 'more true' or 'better' than another.

I'm interested by your choice in example, because it seems contradictory to your claim. To continue your example, if a judgement is "more true" then other judgements, it would also be correct to say that it is the "least false" of the other judgements. By its nature, then, it qualifies for both prepositions: it can lay a claim to be both A) true, and B) false. While the concept of true and false is mutually exclusive on paper, in practice the norm is for some form of equilibrium to be met between the two conditions. "More true", as you say.

To paint everything holisitically as either A or B is establishing a false dilemma.

 
Reply to HAARP

You must be logged in to post a reply!