Quote :

"Nope. It requires faith that the observation is truth."

This is fucking absurd, now. A metaphysical philosopher might assert that the existence of the door to leave the room is simply an arbitrary act of faith, but the fact remains - even he still uses the damned door.

If you don't believe the observation is the truth, you can try again. Nothing's stopping you. Test and test and test again. This is why science works.

Quote :

"And therein lies the problem. A religion need not describe the supernatural."

It need not, it just does a bad job at explaining anything else. It fails miserably at making testable predictions about the natural world. Ergo, it should not be used, particularly as better alternatives exist.

Quote :

"Ehe, everyone knows those people are going to hell anyway Doesn't change the fact that you only quoted the portion that neglects to mention idolatry. you still fail."

Next fucking line, dude.

Quote :

"I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

Really.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 10:06 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 10:05:41 PM

Quote :

"If you don't believe the observation is the truth, you can try again. Nothing's stopping you. Test and test and test again. This is why science works."

And there is also where you fail. Observation depends on interpretation. Interpretation is fallible, my friend. And that, is where the faith comes in. And even doing the same experiment over and over again will never remove the fallibility inherent in the interpretation. The faith comes when believing, yes believing, that the application of the tenets of the religion (the application being the scientific method) will result in removing the fallibility inherent in the interpretation. Again, "Q.E.D."

Quote :

"It need not, it just does a bad job at explaining anything else. It fails miserably at making testable predictions about the natural world. Ergo, it should not be used, particularly as better alternatives exist."

I misspoke. I meant to say that a religion need not dwell on the supernatural. It need not even discuss it, truly.

Quote :

"Next fucking line, dude."

Which you didn't quote. And, by the way, which other people consider to be a different commandment. really. you lose on that one. If you had included it in the quote and I disagreed that that was the "1st Commandment," then you would have a point. Instead, you were quoting what you meant as the 1st Commandment. Sorry.

9/5/2008 10:32:04 PM

you know. I saw that burro had posted this:

Quote :

"How dare anyone question the religion of science, right?"

...jumped directly to page 3...

...and you guessed it! burro is on another fucking self defeating rant that all observation is meaningless...

...and therefore we should teach creationism in schools. case closed.

9/5/2008 10:41:06 PM

i wish you would read earlier in the thread, though, where I said that I did not advocate the teaching of evolution in schools. thanks for proving once again why reading is fundamental.

9/5/2008 10:43:16 PM

when did I say you did?

9/5/2008 10:47:33 PM

Quote :

"And there is also where you fail. Observation depends on interpretation. Interpretation is fallible, my friend. And that, is where the faith comes in. And even doing the same experiment over and over again will never remove the fallibility inherent in the interpretation. The faith comes when believing, yes believing, that the application of the tenets of the religion (the application being the scientific method) will result in removing the fallibility inherent in the interpretation. Again, "Q.E.D.""

One need not even know the tenets of the scientific method to understand that if I do the same thing, under the same conditions, the same result should occur, and overall, does. Formulating any hard observations about the laws of nature would be impossible others. Cavemen understood this, well before any formal theory of scientific knowledge was understood. It is the root of empirical observation. Which you can question all you want, just as we can sit around with thumbs up our asses playing games of sophistry all day.

At the end of the day, you still use the door.

Quote :

"I misspoke. I meant to say that a religion need not dwell on the supernatural. It need not even discuss it, truly."

Sure. It can discuss ethics too, another topic not really under the domain of science. It can discuss linguistics for all it wants. It's simply when it tries to discuss natural phenomena in which it fails miserably.

Enter science.

Quote :

"Which you didn't quote. And, by the way, which other people consider to be a different commandment. really. you lose on that one. If you had included it in the quote and I disagreed that that was the "1st Commandment," then you would have a point. Instead, you were quoting what you meant as the 1st Commandment. Sorry."

Catholics and Lutherans read it as the first line of one larger commandment; quoting further is unnecessary, as the point was clearly conveyed outside of those who split hairs to extract whatever meager victories they can in the face of insurmountable logic. Taking those two groups, that's the majority of Christians. Since majority clearly rules, therefore I win. Hey look, I'm pretty good at this game.

(QED)

9/5/2008 10:47:56 PM

^^not even worth it, baby. can we skip str8t to the part where I ram it straight in your ass?

glad to see that you are gonna continue to claim that you quoted what you meant as the 1st, and then expected me to consider what other people consider it to be. Really honest there, buddy...

But, please, tell me that observation is infallible. I want you to do so. I've got at least two examples that I'd love to ram down your throat. Please. Say it.

Quote :

"Sure. It can discuss ethics too, another topic not really under the domain of science. It can discuss linguistics for all it wants. It's simply when it tries to discuss natural phenomena in which it fails miserably."

The point is that you intentionally define religion to include the supernatural because it suits your argument. My point is that religion encompasses more than just the supernatural. Quit avoiding the point.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 10:52 PM. Reason : ]

9/5/2008 10:48:20 PM

Quote :

"glad to see that you are gonna continue to claim that you quoted what you meant as the 1st, and then expected me to consider what other people consider it to be. Really honest there, buddy..."

This little mini-rant coming from someone whose whole argument hinges on a sophistry?

Please.

Quote :

"But, please, tell me that observation is infallible. I want you to do so. I've got at least two examples that I'd love to ram down your throat. Please. Say it."

No, I'm not making that claim. I'm making the claim that this is the only means by which we ultimately gather information about the natural world. We either use our senses, or we construct theories based upon other empirical observations and make predictions to extend our knowledge.

Meanwhile though, data we gain from our senses and theories is constantly open for testing and revision. Religion isn't. There is no "test" to see if a religion is right or wrong. There is for scientific theories.

Let's face it - you can't handle the idea of science not being equivalent to religion because of the fact that since the Enlightenment, science has occupied a privileged position in society whereas religion has not. Namely, because science makes useful predictions about the natural world. Namely, explicitly because it is an activity based upon observation and testing and not simply faith.

It must just burn, doesn't it? To just be so very, very wrong.

9/5/2008 11:00:23 PM

Quote :

"^^not even worth it, baby. can we skip str8t to the part where I ram it straight in your ass?"

(no homo)

9/5/2008 11:03:11 PM

I am drunk and am looking forward to reading this thread and posting a response. While I have generally disagreed with aaronburro in the past it will certainly be a far cry from c#_shit (I honestly can't remember the name nor care too) posts. Hell I might pass out halfway through but at least I know I'm not completely wasting my time like most of the "Right Conservative" trolls on here.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 11:20 PM. Reason : Through page one.. arronburro respect lowering.]

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 11:21 PM. Reason : Done page two.. respect non-existant. Not worth responding to the initial essay.]

9/5/2008 11:07:55 PM

There's a lot of reasons that I hate her and being an "irresponsible mother" doesn't ever come close to being one of them.

9/5/2008 11:09:32 PM

^ Nail. Head.

9/5/2008 11:15:03 PM

CAN WE PLZ STOP WITH ALL THE SEXUAL INNUENDO ALREADY?

9/5/2008 11:16:48 PM

I know I throw this word around a lot, but I seriously think aaronburro is retarded

9/5/2008 11:17:55 PM

Quote :

"I'm making the claim that this is the only means by which we ultimately gather information about the natural world. We either use our senses, or we construct theories based upon other empirical observations and make predictions to extend our knowledge."

And we have the faith that those observations are worthwhile. We have the faith that there is credence in the scientific method.

Quote :

"There is for scientific theories."

And what test would prove that we are not a brain in a jar?

Quote :

"Meanwhile though, data we gain from our senses and theories is constantly open for testing and revision."

Man, too bad I already refuted that. Woot. But tell me, what good is continuous testing if the interpretation is still flawed? What good is continuous testing if the underlying premise of the test doesn't hold: that observation is truth. You can't do science without accepting one unprovable assertion: observation is truth. And when you accept that assertion, you have accepted faith.

Quote :

"Let's face it - you can't handle the idea of science not being equivalent to religion because of the fact that since the Enlightenment, science has occupied a privileged position in society whereas religion has not."

And what position would that be? Oh, right, the position of "top religion." Thank you for walking in to that one. it's funny. In trying to show that science is not a religion, you have, once again, proved that it is just as jealous as any other religion is of its rivals.

Quote :

"Namely, explicitly because it is an activity based upon observation and testing and not simply faith."

it is based upon faith in those observations. Nice one.

Quote :

"It must just burn, doesn't it? To just be so very, very wrong."

I wouldn't know. How about you tell me.

9/5/2008 11:28:13 PM

Let's see if I can summarize this debate up until this point:

Me: Science is not a religion, for reasons X, Y, and Z.
aaronburro: Science is faith, since all observation is faith! Nothing is real, so science is religion! Nyah nyah nyah!

I think I've summarized it fairly well, and why further debate is futile. Is the idea that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning also to be taken as a simple article of faith with you? You know, despite valid scientific reasons for that fact.

9/5/2008 11:34:33 PM

I'll take that as a tacit admission of defeat. Nice talking with you. Hope to own you again sometime soon!

9/5/2008 11:38:16 PM

Any admissions of futility on my part are simply due to the utter level of speciousness this debate has devolved into. I'd say the consensus of this forum is much against you "owning" me on this topic, or anyone else for that matter.

But I'll leave that for others to express.

[Edited on September 5, 2008 at 11:42 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2008 11:42:20 PM

no you're right

9/5/2008 11:42:44 PM

utter level of speciousness? or your inability to actually support your argument. Definitely the latter. thanks for playing. see ya next week!

9/5/2008 11:46:32 PM

It sounds like aaronburro is not for teaching religion or creationalism in schools, he is for teaching pure relativeism.

9/5/2008 11:47:03 PM

haha. i was never for teaching creationism in schools. thanks for playing as well!

9/5/2008 11:48:36 PM

He just said you weren't. Quit arguing with him.

In fact, you shouldn't bother arguing ANYTHING, since you can't even know if any of it is real.

9/6/2008 12:09:14 AM

you know what I meant...

9/6/2008 12:23:43 AM

I don't know what you mean. None of us can ever know what any of us mean.

9/6/2008 12:36:25 AM

how do you actually teach creationism???

lol

it's all a matter of faith anyways.

9/6/2008 12:58:33 AM

Quote :

"haha. i was never for teaching creationism in schools. thanks for playing as well!"

Quote :

"I believe that creationism should be taught in public schools. But, I also accept that there is a separation of church and state, so I would never push for such a thing."

I'd say you are indeed for creationism in schools, just not actively seeking such an outcome. In any case that second quote is totally confusing. Do you mean to say you disagree with the separation of church and state, but you accept that it's there or what? Because if you did agree with the separation you would never think for a moment that religion should be taught in public schools.

9/6/2008 8:43:03 AM

dont kid yourselves...if this lady was a lib and BO had made her his VP choice, you would all be kneeling at the alter of Palin, ranting about how this was yet another example of how BO was going to change things in Washington instead of going with the 'old guard' (which is exactly what he did btw).

the repubs beat the dems at their own game here and it going going to have a huge effect on the election.

9/6/2008 8:43:39 AM

I was taught both theories in school.

I struggle to understand how anyone can deny evolution. Now, I dont know how the earth began, but im certain that evolution does occur.

If you believe in a god, which I do, why does one think that one so powerful to create the universe doesnt have a system to make some changes over time? Ive never understood that.

[Edited on September 6, 2008 at 8:48 AM. Reason : ..]

9/6/2008 8:47:32 AM

^I agree.

I also believe that women should have a choice in early-term abortions (8 weeks or so) and I struggle with people who say that it shouldnt happen under any circumstance.

9/6/2008 8:51:30 AM

Im prochoice to an extent. Certainly the earlier the better. I wish we could get the morning after drug OTC so it would just become part of the after sex routine. I think that would go ALONG ways to reduce the number of people seeking abortions.

I dont know how anyone could stand for a partial birth abortion. I dont care what choices you think you have, but if that baby can survive outside your womb, they deserve the right to. Not simply murder it bc one body part is technically still in the vagina, so its not a "birth".

9/6/2008 9:02:15 AM

You know how the sun comes up in the morning? Well like... how do we know the sun is really coming up. I mean yeah there's light but maybe the light is just a product of our faith that the sun is going to produce light? How do we even know we're here and this isn't all just the dream of some far out ladybug in another dimension maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

9/6/2008 11:13:24 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "Republic has nothing to do with being broken up into states. " and yet, that we are."

And yet, again, you don't understand what the words mean. you can afterall, have a dictatorship and have different states.

This argument only further proves that you are entirely ignorant of anything.

9/6/2008 11:18:08 AM

Quote :

"if this lady was a lib"

If she was a lib, she'd be a completely different person, she might as well be Biden at that point (who people don't hate, but they aren't fawning over like the right and Palin).

9/6/2008 11:50:48 AM

REMEMBER!: When you're not hot, you get treatment like this!

9/6/2008 12:07:27 PM

Good thread aaronburro!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/10/america-to-sarah-palin-enough/

7/10/2014 2:07:02 PM

lol

we all make mistakes, but few people grossly misread the leaves like this...

7/10/2014 2:52:44 PM

loly sweet jesus

7/10/2014 3:08:09 PM

I, for one, would love to see her in the White House. You know, so she can quit her executive role and wind up with a reality TV show and be a source of Tea Party quips for Fox News.

7/10/2014 4:55:50 PM

I hope Palin gets eaten by a Grizzly Bear

7/11/2014 9:02:43 AM

So did anyone see her full speech? Holy shit, is she popping pills? She came across as bat-shit crazy.

This thread is pretty funny. Do you still feel the same way burro?

1/21/2016 11:20:23 AM

Wait, does burro really think science is a religion?

1/21/2016 1:07:45 PM

Quote :

"If she was a lib, she'd be a completely different person, she might as well be Biden at that point (who people don't hate, but they aren't fawning over like the right and Palin). "

haha, Biden has a chronic case of severe foot-in-mouth syndrome, but he's nothing like Palin. Biden is, overall, a decent dude and not unreasonable or ridiculous...he just speaks before thinking, consistently. Palin speaks without ever thinking, because she's a fucking moron.

1/21/2016 2:05:03 PM

^^ was about to ask the same question. He can't be serious, can he ?

1/22/2016 9:50:37 AM