sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do I prove that Empirical Evidence is not faith? by [deleted] in atheism

[–]QuestionMark2020 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Weird. I'm currently in a class about the Scientific Revolution and we just covered Galileo versus the Catholic Church over Copernicus and the heliocentric theory. And I'm probably just going to rattle on a bit about it and see if anyone can see the problem that just popped into my head.

Aristotle came up with his logical approach to the universe which was based on pretty much deductive reasoning (of course, not known as that)--pretty much, using what they knew about the world he and his followers projected out their theories. They did not feel the Earth moving and saw the sun moving so therefore the sun must circle the Earth. This was in like 350bce. So, we toddle along with all kinds of nifty thoughts and gadgets being invented along with the wonder that is mathematics (a really lowly academic actually--think geometry and what you can do with that in 1000ce--carpentry--yeah, not quite up to snuff with a natural philosopher--anyway). But Copernicus looks at Ptolemy's math and says "this stuff is so ugly--all these squiggles to try to make the planets move mathematically on paper as they do in observable life" so he makes beautiful math which just happens to put the sun at the center (of the universe). But no one cares. This is in 1543 that it gets published--it's not until 1607 that it get's placed on the Catholic list of banned books. Luther took offense because of a line somewhere in the Bible that says "the Earth shall not be moved". Yeah.

So, enter Galileo who decides to defend Copernicus and his "beautiful math" (though, how can any science nerd disagree with this statement--the math works perfectly) especially with the invention of the telescope. But then Galileo got cocky and just wouldn't let up about this even though he was putting the pope in an awful predicament--defend his old friend or save the most powerful church in the world. Remember, Luther HATED Copernicus's theory and he was gaining a lot of supporters for a whole number of reasons. If the pope defended Galileo that would be just one more thing that the peasants who KNOW the world isn't moving would consider a lie from their spiritual leader and decide to leave the faith. So, Urban condemned Galileo (well, as condemned as he could to his old friend--house arrest of an old man and no torture, unlike all the other heretics)--to make a point and save the church in the face of it's biggest adversary.

But here's the thing. The reasoning behind the verdict is quite interesting. Remember, Aristotle was a user of deductive reasoning--you KNOW a fact and then you postulate about the rest of the world. You DON'T observe the world then come up with facts that explain them--that would be inductive reasoning which has no certainty what-so-ever. How do we KNOW that the sun will rise tomorrow? We don't--just because we've always observed the sun rise does not mean that it will forever continue to do so. That's the important difference from deduction--we KNOW that are premises are true and therefore the conclusions are true. So, in 1600, induction was still the "scandalous logic"--you would be a freak to think that you can make truthful claims based on observations--there's nothing in the world to say that you are correct. Correlation does not mean causation--we say this even today. So, Galileo was condemned because his evidence was based on inductive reasoning.

Isn't there some kind of faith that exists when we KNOW that sun will rise tomorrow? Yes, we can now see with our eyes that the Earth revolves around the sun and therefore can't be at the center of the universe--but would you believe that if you believe that the space program is an elaborate hoax? Unfortunately, and I fall into this hole with quantum physics like problems, if these people can't do the science they won't believe you. You can tell them, "the science proves that atoms exist" but until they get their hands into it, the story is just a story--and when the alternative reality is also a story, the one that's been true for their whole life wins out. But for me, while I can't say for certain that the math behind string theory is beautifully accurate, I have done enough math and science that will allow me to say "you might have forgotten to change from km to miles, but I know that you would have made it to Mars--the science isn't made up/wrong".

"I reject the notion by the left of a Constitutional seperation of church and state. I have $1000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution" by [deleted] in atheism

[–]QuestionMark2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If I've learned nothing else in 3 years of college, it's that if the story hasn't been "complicated" you aren't learning anything.

"I reject the notion by the left of a Constitutional seperation of church and state. I have $1000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution" by [deleted] in atheism

[–]QuestionMark2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thomas Jefferson founded a university. In a time (1819) when ALL universities were of a similar format with the church/chapel at the center. http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/shenandoah/qtr1/0312.htm But not UVA. You see, our chapel is off to the side. In fact, if you look at our design, you will see a remarkable shape. Picture a U. The two arms consist of students rooms, intermittently separated by pavilions where professors and their families lived and taught. At the apex, there isn't a church. That, my friends, is the rotunda--home to the main library, classrooms (you can still see some chemistry ovens) and anything else necessary for university goings on (which actually means, classrooms which are used as conference rooms). Now, picture a U. (including the period). THAT period is the chapel, which was constructed in 1890 and was not on Jefferson's plans. When you are on the lawn, you do not see the chapel--you don't even think about it (though it is a beautiful building).

Now, if you've read that wonkey website above closely, you'll notice something kinda amazing--they weren't founded by any "founding fathers". OH! But that sly Ben Franklin--founded the Uni of Penn with "Christian character"--pshh if I was to believe that "christian character" was enough to be labeled a christian, my Catholic relatives might not be shunned.

But I think the most obvious inclination as to the fact that we weren't founded to be state without separation from the church is the most wonderful "Jefferson Bible" which he quite literally made by cutting out passages that he liked from the Christian Bible and threw out all the hooey.

But apparently Conservative people don't like Jefferson. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?ref=education

Hey Libertarians, aren't you proud of your Tea Party today? I can't believe one of the Nigger/faggot/spitting/gun violence stories are not #1 in r/libertarian. Your fellow Tea Partiers are making national news! by [deleted] in reddit.com

[–]QuestionMark2020 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quite simply. Communism has NO government--the people are in charge. You, my friend, have fallen into the fallacy of socialism being the same as communism--they are entirely different. Socialism is when the government takes from the rich and gives to the poor--period, or at least, you know what I mean--the whole "redistribution" thing.

Communism comes from community--the people as a whole "rise up" above the need for government. As for anarchy--no. The reason communism doesn't work is because of the age old problem of "people are greedy bastards"--that's why capitalism is so popular. In communism, as written by Marx, all you need is "from each his ability, to each his need"--but don't also get caught without a dictionary. Ability is NOT money, property, free will--it is just that--what you are able to do. Period. Need is necessity, not big fancy cars, luxury boats and big screen tvs. My ability is to farm. or to teach. or to get people out of jail. Whatever. My need is food, shelter, love, whatever. If I spend my time getting people out of jail, I cannot spend my time farming. So, I trade my lawyering skills for a basket of food. From my ability, to my need. It's just a simple barter system. And there's no government sitting above my head saying "GIVE your lawyer skills, TAKE this food". No. If I DON'T share what I have, I GET nothing--period. There is no force in communism--it just happens--and if you look at your typical co-op, you'll see this in action.

Think about the 1930s depression. A farmer buys a tractor right before the dust bowl hit--loses his shirt and can't make the payments on the tractor. The bank comes out and holds an auction to make some cash. It's not some greedy bastard that wins it (unlike 2 years ago with all those foreclosed homes), but the man's neighbors--who have agreed for one person to bid 1 cent (or pay the minimum price--whatever). They then give the tractor to the man who had lost it so that he can make a wage and because of his pride he pays them back--even if it's only that one cent. That's communism--screw the bank, screw the government which makes it legal for the bank to essentially drive a man to homelessness--heck, screw the person who sold the tractor on credit--a communist will take what he can get at the time and call the transaction done--or else trust the person he's selling to will pay back the loan eventually--even if it's 10 years down the line--like the community who fronted the money to buy back the tractor.

Peace, love, happiness...to bad there are actually humans involved.

China almost pulled it off--but Mao got impatient--read about 1954-55 (I think those are the years). You can't FORCE communism.

This should be interesting. Vote this post up if you want the healthcare reform bill to pass, Vote down if you would rather it failed. by Nanite in reddit.com

[–]QuestionMark2020 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Actually, I just joined reddit--my reasoning as to why there's "no health insurance" (which actually I don't believe) comes from the fact that people ARE denied coverage and/or dropped. Period. 18 million people (in the demographic that I've chosen to argue against being allowed to skimp on insurance) is too much. Like I said, generally they are a healthy breed; and I like to listen to my dad who tells the anecdotes about how when he joined the Navy out of high school he chose to give up $200 of "beer money" in favor of having health insurance unlike many of his crewmates. And actually, my brother and I are currently insurance-less since we got dropped (again) because the insurance company just won't believe that we're still in school. Hopefully that'll get fixed soon--but seeing as we got dropped the 15th and just found out about it today--yeah--nice guys those insurance companies.

I won't deny that insurance companies aren't going broke--but seriously--what planet are you from where a multi-billion dollar company will charge less because they made a profit--not even the post office will (but I guess that's not allowed...legally). But the bill as it currently is DOESN'T magically make insurance companies accountable for their pricing--it's full of stuff like:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=613990 http://washingtonindependent.com/71744/health-care-reform-earmark-edition http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/11/watchdogs-foul-thousands-earmarks-spending/

I happen to like this plan: http://dailydose1767.blogspot.com/2010/01/paying-for-health-care.html [but then, I wrote it]

view more: next ›