Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Oh man Hicks try to BAN Gays
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

R. Chamedes wrote:
This debate has been going on for too long, just drop it already! You guys think that you are the only ones to ever have this argument? I'm glad to see that you think that we can all come to an agreement on the Non-Prophets forum! No one is going to change their pov because of what they read here. Get a clue and stop wasting your time on the subject!


don't post unless you have something constructive to say. there is a 10 page theard about ugly women in hollywood on this bored and somehow you see fit not to let us indulge in this discussion.
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Doctrine



Joined: 05 Apr 2003
Posts: 4626
Location: ATL, Livin' Swell
 Reply with quote  

See...That's the problem...Everything is always terminated here with a "this is pointless" comment...I've even been guilty...But when you step back, you think...I'm posting on an internet board, almost EVERYTHING is pointless...
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Or, rather, almost EVERYTHING has a point.

It's all relevant. Just about all discussion.

There must have been 30,000 religion threads on this board. Each time one comes up there is ONE new thing I learn. EVERY FUCKING TIME. If it's not a fact, it's a perspective.

Maybe people would see the point to these posts if they read them better - or were open to thinking about things in a context that they didn't already in the first place.

No, it's not new for THE WORLD...but for many here this is the only place they can HAVE intelligent discussion - even if it's about topics that are beat to death.

- Shane
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:53 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cinnamonica



Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 901
 Reply with quote  

tinkledrinker, damn.sync.you are allright.
ive only been here a couple of times, i had never posted, but i originally thought this thread was gonna be about bill hicks. and then when i read it i thought it rocked that a post about homosexuality with the word HICKS in the title turned into a discourse on scientific method.
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 4:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
apeofdeath
FIRE BREATHING DRAG QUEEN


Joined: 30 Sep 2002
Posts: 2804
Location: Kingston, mang
 Reply with quote  

of course you can say everything is subjective, but doing so will not get you anywhere. It's just a cop out.

That is why mathematics has a set of axioms. These axioms are the foundations of mathematics. We can only work with what we are given, we can not rely on divine insight. Mathematics must work within the boundaries of these axioms.

So if you say that these axioms are indeed 'subjective' then what next? That seems like a really negative outlook on things.

I see your point tinkle, but I still have some reservations. But your point was duly noted.
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

Infamous wrote:
of course you can say everything is subjective, but doing so will not get you anywhere. It's just a cop out.

That is why mathematics has a set of axioms. These axioms are the foundations of mathematics. We can only work with what we are given, we can not rely on divine insight. Mathematics must work within the boundaries of these axioms.

So if you say that these axioms are indeed 'subjective' then what next? That seems like a really negative outlook on things.

I see your point tinkle, but I still have some reservations. But your point was duly noted.


thank you
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sequence



Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 2182
Location: www.anteuppdx.com
 Reply with quote  

Whose method is the scientific method? From whence and whom did it arise? Was this method handed to you by Jesus himself as the means by which one can arrive at truth? Does the fact that the domain of objects that science, and philosophy for that matter, 'studies' has changed over and over again over point to a problem in claiming rigor? If the truths of mathematics are truly atemporal and conditionally related to humans in only one way, that is we discover them and do not alter them in any way, how does this stand in relation to the model of progress that people often want to assert holding fast to scientific objectivity can yield us?

Let us not forget that the reasons and manners in which realms of study such as mathematics are conducted are far from static over time. Euclid studied geometry for a very different reason than Descartes. The very concept of 'construction' as the task of philosophy or mathematics is an entirely modern one. Even here there are plenty of thinkers who want to challenge the approach in which we alter the domain of objects in order to further our inquiry, and progress.

Also, why would you cite 5000 of philosophical history as 'proof' for the existence of god? Any good student of the field is going to know that any proof you can offer, any other good student can refute and vice versa. Arguing for the existence of God is entirely asinine.

Blah blah blah.....nerds.
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
R. Kamidees



Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 4834
Location: where the wild things are
 Reply with quote  

tinkleDRINKER wrote:
R. Chamedes wrote:
This debate has been going on for too long, just drop it already! You guys think that you are the only ones to ever have this argument? I'm glad to see that you think that we can all come to an agreement on the Non-Prophets forum! No one is going to change their pov because of what they read here. Get a clue and stop wasting your time on the subject!


don't post unless you have something constructive to say. there is a 10 page theard about ugly women in hollywood on this bored and somehow you see fit not to let us indulge in this discussion.


No, this was a thread about banning gays and it turned into a theological discussion. I just don't see how this is productive to the topic. But feel free to express your feelings, don't let me impede. But at the same time don't try to prevent me from expressing my own opinions.
Post Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
cinnamonica



Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 901
 Reply with quote  

"of course you can say everything is subjective, but doing so will not get you anywhere. It's just a cop out."

see, here you are assuming that i am trying to "get somewhere", but i am not...understanding does not have to progress along specific concrete constructs of what is "fact". all fact is fiction. belief is often hazardous to your health.
"That is why mathematics has a set of axioms. These axioms are the foundations of mathematics. We can only work with what we are given, we can not rely on divine insight. Mathematics must work within the boundaries of these axioms"
i think that type of linear isolated thinking is what fucks western science up....and everything is subjective, that is definitely not a negative thing, unless you are so embedded in the mechanistic archaic doctrine of the scientific method, that you cant be open to the fact that the organ you are processing all this shit with is plastic, dynamic, and subjective....
every single stimulus you perceive whether consciously or subconsciously is automatically valence encoded as pleasure or pain. the amygdala gets it, and then sends it to the hippocampus to compare the stimulus with past memories of similar experience and figures out whether to approach it (parasympathetic) or avoid it (fight/flight, sympathetic) so your general state of arousal fluctuates through out the day and varies according to the building sum/compilation of these stimuli...emotion is the primary contributor to reaction. the limbic system is fucking huge...
now this is the neuroscience explanation for all this, i dont take it as "fact", but it makes sense, ive seen it confirmed, i lecture on this crap and i use it clinically...name me one thing you do that is a pure action...nothing, right, everything is a reaction...i also practice acupuncture, and in chinese medicine, the heart meridian dictates what the brain is going to do. if youve been in love, i am sure you can relate.the heart will put a foot up the rational mind's ass...
as for the science/philopophy/spirituality thing, there was once not much separation...descartes initiated a big fat breach when he made a deal with the vatican to keep science and spiritualty separate, because he had been forbidden to exhume/and/or dissect bodies as it was against the church...
'i think therefore i am' further ensured the separation of body and mind.
i think therefore i am a being who thinks...right?
whatever, the point i am trying to make is that subjective is not negative, when you observe something, it changes. you change.
i still say mathematics is a form of music.
but the only thing i know is that i dont know shit.ive got 7 senses, a thermostat, and an imagination to deny it all.
knibb high football rules.
Post Fri Mar 19, 2004 8:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

sequence wrote:
Whose method is the scientific method? From whence and whom did it arise? Was this method handed to you by Jesus himself as the means by which one can arrive at truth? Does the fact that the domain of objects that science, and philosophy for that matter, 'studies' has changed over and over again over point to a problem in claiming rigor? If the truths of mathematics are truly atemporal and conditionally related to humans in only one way, that is we discover them and do not alter them in any way, how does this stand in relation to the model of progress that people often want to assert holding fast to scientific objectivity can yield us?

Let us not forget that the reasons and manners in which realms of study such as mathematics are conducted are far from static over time. Euclid studied geometry for a very different reason than Descartes. The very concept of 'construction' as the task of philosophy or mathematics is an entirely modern one. Even here there are plenty of thinkers who want to challenge the approach in which we alter the domain of objects in order to further our inquiry, and progress.

Also, why would you cite 5000 of philosophical history as 'proof' for the existence of god? Any good student of the field is going to know that any proof you can offer, any other good student can refute and vice versa. Arguing for the existence of God is entirely asinine.

Blah blah blah.....nerds.


Sequence,

I know that you are well educated on this topic (far gerater than I), for that reason alone i am inclined to not even comment on what you said, because i know i will just get slammed (I simply just do not have the ammunition). I was not offering philsophers as "proof" - i was saying that i could site thier arguments, which i figured that infamous could not. I know that you can and do so to a better degree than I. In the end I was simply trying to spark some intrguing disscussion arouond here - if it is not appreciated i appologize. Philosophy is only a hobby to me, i spend all day in the lab, when i get a chance to blow some junk out of my mental carberator I like to indulge. I know that you teach it, whilst you are seeking an advanced degree, and at times the arguments of "ametuers" can make you angry. for this I appologize again, but i appreciate you bringing up the points that you did it will certainly give me something to think about. i would be foolish to answer hastily, because i smell a trap.

regards,
Jay
Post Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:09 am
 View user's profile Send private message
apeofdeath
FIRE BREATHING DRAG QUEEN


Joined: 30 Sep 2002
Posts: 2804
Location: Kingston, mang
 Reply with quote  

I never knew there was such a thing as 'western' science. For me, science is science.

Please fill me in.
Post Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:46 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:01 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon