General Discussion > The Speakeasy: OOG/Off-topic Discussion
Abolish blasphemy laws
Desiderya:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:23 ---Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
--- End quote ---
Likelihood might've been a better word. But why is it higher? Because if the Earth is 5000 years old all the methods used to determine the Earth age have to be faulty, and if they're faulty, even more has to be faulty, too. Since this does not seem to be the case (Just imagine what errors of this scale would mean to any application that just utilizes radioactive decay) it's the magic oddity that I've described earlier. There's an effect that just distorts these measurements that contradict the teaching of creation/genesis. And just that. Once applied in the here and now to make your hardware work on more than just ants it's completely legit.
Nicoletta Mithra:
Since when does 'does not seem to be the case' get treated as 'is not the case'? Yah, the young world creationist need to assume that God created a world in a way that fools human reason, but really, you can't rule that out by saying 'but things work now'.
I rather think that it's unreasonable that a reasonable God created a world like that. It'd also be rather cruel. As Christianity teaches that God is reasonable (logos rather than a-logikos) and loving rather then neeedlessly cruel the position that young earth creationists hold seems self-defeating.
Much better argument against them than just stamping your feet and saying "but that would mean that in regards to the past all our physics wouldn't work", because the YEC would just nod and say: "Exactly."
Lyn Farel:
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:23 ---
--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jun 2014, 11:07 ---As far i'm concerned, the probability that Earth is 4.54B years old because Carbon 14 said so, is infinitely higher than Earth being 5000y old.
--- End quote ---
Well, I wonder how you can give that probability assessment. Have you checked an infinite number of worlds by - as we now know - radioactive decay of Uranium to lead on said infinite numbers of worlds, where one half of them was 5000y old and the other 4.54B years to be able to calculate the probabilities?
What you really say here is that you trust science infinitely more than a counting of days in the bible in regard to the age of Earth. And while I think that is reasonable, I don't see how it is the option we need to embrace by necessity.
--- End quote ---
No, what I really say here is that it is reasonable to me. Likelihood was probably a better term indeed.
I never said anywhere that it has to be embraced by necessity. And if you don't embrace it, what then ?
Honestly I am not sure what you are trying to achieve by that remark, or what is your point, as you probably perfectly understood what I meant in the first place. I couldn't care less if God is reasonable or not in YEC world. I am not one, and am also not trying to tell them that they are wrong. I will leave it to you since you seem to know how to handle them.
Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
Edit :
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 13:23 ---Also, I never said a scientist elite is 'controlling everything related to knowledge like the Church did in the past'.
--- End quote ---
You wrote above :
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 21 Jun 2014, 15:16 ---Honestly, nowadays those that follow Scientism are a small elite that shares in priviledged access to knowledge and tries to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. They are pretty much like the early european Christianity or near easter Islam after having secured dominance in their regions.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Nicoletta Mithra on 22 Jun 2014, 07:02 ---As to the followers of Scientism: I didn't say they are fanatics. I say they are trying to secure a monopoly on determining meaning and truth. One doesn't need to be a fanatic for that, one simply needs to want to be in charge for whatever reason (and that includes superficially benign reasons).
--- End quote ---
So maybe I understood something wrong, I don't know. Apologies for that if that's the case.
Nicoletta Mithra:
Don't think that likelyhood captures it either, after all a YEC says that God arranged everything so that it seems to science as it does. You can't really assess such a view by assigning likelyhood or probability, as it's making the claim that there should be no change in the empirical data at all.
--- Quote from: Lyn Farel on 22 Jun 2014, 15:33 ---Because if we start to put in question scientific conclusions on the simple assumption that they might be wrong, or based on subjective axioms, then what ?
--- End quote ---
Just saying, humankind lived not so badly without science for the vast majority of it's history and all of it's pre-history. I think it should be allowed to fundamentally question science, but then it's quite ingrained into many people nowadays that "if we start to put in question scientific conclusions... then what ?". Well, what then? The world certainly won't perish and the sun will come up regardless of whether we think the earth turns or the sun travels around earth.
Not accepting Science as the best way of determining what is true isn't the end of the world. And if your toilet is stuck what you need isn't a scientist, but a plumber. We depend far more on non-scientific professions than on science to makeour living. Science in a way is a luxury. (One that I'm quite in favour of.)
Vikarion:
I don't want to get modded, but it seems to me that this is a bit silly. All of this is stupid, if intelligently so. At least, from my perspective.
I don't mean that we should invade anyone who doesn't share our beliefs. Practically, we don't have the money. Ideologically, invasion fails to transmit memes. I should have thought that this were obvious. But then, given what has happened, perhaps not.
But why should I live in a country where what I think is criminalized if I speak it? Therefore, I am anti-blasphemy laws. And, moreover, I do not wish to die or to be imprisoned because of what I think - therefore, why give to, and thus strengthen, those with anti-blasphemy laws?
To me, human dignity is an illusion. I have worked in a lot of blue-collar occupations. It seems to me that "human dignity" does not exist, save as something for the middle and upper classes to give as a reason to penalize disagreement with their beliefs. I may be biased, but, even as a member of those classes now, their precious idealization of human ideologies seems, frankly, without any real foundation.
Here is reality: Feed. Fuck. Survive. We grew out of that. Ideas brought us out of that. But why grant special status to any of them?
Well. I can't speak except as a former fundamentalist Christian and a blue collar - into middle class - worker. It seems to me that that is an excellent qualification for speaking to the subject, but I'm sure I can be found wrong in some detail. Yet, as the above, I can say that what I really wanted was to know what was true, and what worked.
You see, even as a conservative fundamentalist Christian in the U.S., I wanted to know what was true. What was real. By investigating reality, I became an atheist. I do not resent this, even if it is harder, because I want to know what is closer to reality. As such, I am against anything which would have kept me from knowing the truth.
And, more so, I do think that there is a truth. Either we are descended from ape-precursors, or we aren't. Either the earth is 6-8,000 years old, or it isn't. In either case, what we can expect is different. I want to be ready for what will happen, to be able to be ready for the next virus, the next volcanic explosion, the next earthquake.
As such, what is true is that which corresponds to reality, to what has happened and will happen. And, in deference to that, what should anyone care about "special" or "fundamental" beliefs? What matters is what will benefit or destroy us, and that is the province of the study of reality, or, if you will, science. What works.
I oppose limiting free speech not because I am without regard to the bad things people might say, but because I think there must always be a forum for even just one person to speak what corresponds to reality.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version