The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

Oh, please. Now you're the one taking the "why bother, it's all meaningless" position. Things aren't as open to interpretation as you make them out to be. Really, if you don't like it, don't discuss it (anymore). Some people might actually be interested.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Oh, please. Now you're the one taking the "why bother, it's all meaningless" position. Things aren't as open to interpretation as you make them out to be. Really, if you don't like it, don't discuss it (anymore). Some people might actually be interested.
Today 06:40 PM

It is meaningless, they are open to interpretation and I highly doubt arguing semantics in the only place we can argue religion interests anyone.

[ZAKtheGeek]

The following sounds like and could lead to what sounds eerily like the argument we've already had, only over something else entirely... That's why I hate myself for writing it.

Nonetheless. If a clear-cut definition is open for interpretation, then I don't know what isn't. You could say that everything we could possibly talk about will inevitably boil down to silly semantics.

The fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions. With this in mind we could perhaps progress the discussion further, but no, you feel it's necessary to complain about the semantics of a discussion you're not even part of anymore.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Nonetheless. If a clear-cut definition is open for interpretation, then I don't know what isn't. You could say that everything we could possibly talk about will inevitably boil down to silly semantics.

See this again is a problem of semantics. To be interpretation only modifies a definition and does not change it to the degree that it is falsified. You seem to think interpreting definitions makes them wrong. Fine you can believe that just don't discuss it here.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

The fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions. With this in mind we could perhaps progress the discussion further, but no, you feel it's necessary to complain about the semantics of a discussion you're not even part of anymore.

Assumptions should be. We disagree on what the definition of an assumption is and therefore how basic of an assumption is needed for anything. This is a semantic debate and has no place here and I am sorry for having dragged it out. Not to mention if people have varying underlying assumptions it doesn't matter if they realize it they'll just try and change each others assumptions and it'll dead end again. So pointing this out is meaningless.

[TheSpacePope]

Honestly, I've stayed out of this conversation.
But I found an interesting site that translates phrases into different languages and then literally translates them back to english.
I just thought it was relevant as it returns to the writing and translation of the bible.

Original English Text:
Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Teach these new disciples to obey all the commands
I have given you. And be sure of this:
I am with you always, even to the end of the age.

Translated to Japanese:
従って、弟子を作り行きそれらにおよび息子および神聖な精神はすべての国家の父の名で洗礼を施す。これらの 新しい弟子を私が与えたコマンドすべてに従うように教えなさい。そしてこれ確実がありなさい: 私は年齢の終わりにあなたと、常にある。

Translated back to English:
Therefore, it makes the pupil and goes and reaches to those and the
son and holy mind administer baptism with name of the father of all
nations. In order the command to which I give the pupil where these
are new to follow entirely, teach. And this be a certainty: The end of
age comparatively you and, there is I always.

Translated to Chinese:
所以, 它做学生和去和到达对那些并且儿子和圣洁头脑执行洗礼以所有国家的父亲的名字。在有条有理我给学生这些是新 建整个地随后而来的指令, 教。并且这是把握: 年龄的结尾比较您和, 那里总是I 。

Translated back to English:
Therefore, it is the student and goes and arrives and the son and the
holy brains executes the baptism to these by all national father's
name. Gives the instruction in orderly me which the student these is
newly built entire afterwards comes, teaches. And this is the
assurance: The age ending compares you and, there always I.

Translated to French:
Par conséquent, c'est l'étudiant et disparaît et arrive et le fils
et les cerveaux saints exécute le baptême à ces derniers par le nom
de tout le père national. Me donne à l'instruction dans le planton
ce que l'étudiant que c'est nouvellement entier construit après
vient, enseigne. Et c'est l'assurance : La fin d'âge vous compare et,
là toujours I.

Translated back to English:
Consequently, it is the student one and disappears and arrives and the
holy son and brains carry out the baptism with the latter by the name
of all the national father. Give me with the instruction in the
orderly what the student that it lately whole is built after comes,
sign. And it is the insurance: The end of age compares to you and,
there always I.

Translated to German:
Infolgedessen ist es der Kursteilnehmer einer und verschwindet und
kommt an und der heilige Sohn und die Gehirne führen die Taufe mit
der letzten durch den Namen des ganzes nationalen Vaters durch. Geben
Sie mich mit der Anweisung in der Ordonanz was der Kursteilnehmer
kommt, daß es kürzlich vollständig nach aufgebaut wird, Zeichen.
Und es ist die Versicherung: Das Ende des Alters vergleicht mit Ihnen
und, dort immer I.

Translated back to English:
Consequently it is the class participant of one and disappears and
arrives and the holy son and the brains executes the baptism with the
latter by the name whole of the national father. Give me with the
statement into the Ordonanz which the class participant come that it
is structured recently completely after, characters. And it is the
insurance: The end of the age there always compares I with you and.

Translated to Italian:
Di conseguenza è il partecipante del codice categoria di uno e
sparisce ed arriva ed il figlio santo ed i cervelli esegue il baptism
con il posteriore dal nome intero del padre nazionale. Dialo con
l'istruzione nel Ordonanz che il partecipante del codice categoria
avviene che è strutturato recentemente completamente dopo, caratteri.
Ed è l'assicurazione: La conclusione dell'età là paragona sempre la
I voi e.

Translated back to English:
Consequently she is the participant of the code category of and
disappears and it arrives and the Saint son and the brains it executes
the baptism with the posterior one from the entire name of the
national father. It gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that
the participant of the code category happens that she is structured
recently completely after, characters. And it is the assurance: The
conclusion of the age compares always you here and.

Translated to Portuguese:
Conseqüentemente é o participant da categoria do código de e
desaparece e chega e o filho de Saint e os cérebros que executa o
baptism com posterior do nome inteiro do pai nacional. Dá-a com a
instrução no Ordonanz que o participant da categoria do código
acontece que está estruturada recentemente completamente após,
caráteres. E é a garantia: A conclusão da idade compara-o sempre
aqui e.

Translated back to English:
Consequently he is participant of the category of the code of and
disappears and it arrives and the son of Saint and the brains that
baptism with posterior executes of the entire name of the national
father. It gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that
participant of the category of the code happens that it is
structuralized recently full after, character. E is the guarantee: The
conclusion of the age always compares it here e.

Translated to Spanish:
Por lo tanto él es participante de la categoría del código de y
desaparece y llega y el hijo de Santo y de los cerebros que el
bautismo con el trasero ejecuta del nombre entero del padre nacional.
Lo da con la instrucción en el Ordonanz que sucede el participante de
la categoría del código que es structuralized recientemente lleno
después de, carácter. E es la garantía: La conclusión de la edad
la compara siempre aquí e.

Translated back to English:
Therefore it is participant of the category of the code of and
disappears and arrives and the son from Santo and the brains that the
baptism with the buttock executes of the whole name of the national
father. He gives it with the instruction in the Ordonanz that happens
the participant of the category of the code that is structuralized
recently full after, character. And it is the guarantee: The
conclusion of the age compares e always here.

http://www.tashian.com/multibabel/
the link.
Sorry for the interuption.
Continue.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Well, mechanical translations are never exact. Free translators to be found online are especially suspect. Not to say that meaning can't be lost in translation, just saying that this isn't a great example.

We disagree on what the definition of an assumption is and therefore how basic of an assumption is needed for anything.

The whole time I was using the definition commonly applied in logic systems: an assumption is a statement which we take to be true. We don't prove it, we just say it's true. It could be a hypothetical premise, it could be a way to "set up" the basic ideas the system analyzes. There; now that it could not possibly be clearer that I'm speaking in terms of logic, no one else will make the same mistake you did, and any nonsemantic objections can be voiced against the following statement of mine:

Assumptions are necessary in order to use logic.

Is that okay with you? Does everyone have your permission to talk about this now, in spite of your obvious unwillingness to be involved in the discussion yourself?

And then if no one else disagrees, can we move on to an actual discussion, instead of this discussion about how we should lead our discussion?

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

The whole time I was using the definition commonly applied in logic systems: an assumption is a statement which we take to be true. We don't prove it, we just say it's true. It could be a hypothetical premise, it could be a way to "set up" the basic ideas the system analyzes. There; now that it could not possibly be clearer that I'm speaking in terms of logic, no one else will make the same mistake you did, and any nonsemantic objections can be voiced against the following statement of mine:

Assumptions are necessary in order to use logic.

Is that okay with you? Does everyone have your permission to talk about this now, in spite of your obvious unwillingness to be involved in the discussion yourself?

And then if no one else disagrees, can we move on to an actual discussion, instead of this discussion about how we should lead our discussion?

Dude go back like a page or two. No one really wanted to talk about this. Besides the fact you only have half the definition of assumption. Your missing the "without proof" part. My side of the argument asserted that the lack of any viable alternative constituted proof. Further I see no connection to assumptions being needed for logic and religion. That is unless you want to talk about how everyone should just stop making assumptions. Which would totally disable any use of logic at it very base according to you. That or you want everyone to be open to changing the most basic assumptions they make. Which isn't going to happen because they are so intertwined with our sense of self as to be inviolate.

Edit: This is a whole different argument than the one about assumptions being at the core of logic. This is about exactly how useful/possible it is to truly objectively question ones assumptions. I believe that to be quite impossible. Still neither of these seem really religion related.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Dude go back like a page or two. No one really wanted to talk about this.

I imagine people didn't feel like getting in the middle of our shitstorm.

Besides the fact you only have half the definition of assumption. Your missing the "without proof" part.

That's not explicitly part of the definition. But it's true that it makes no sense to assume something if you can simply prove it (it is, in fact, preferable to prove it and to make as few assumptions as possible). This has been your argument, and I have expressed very clear understanding of this fact.

Further I see no connection to assumptions being needed for logic and religion. That is unless you want to talk about how everyone should just stop making assumptions. Which would totally disable any use of logic at it very base according to you.

Originally Posted by me

he fact is, this all started by my pointing out (or was it Swordchucks originally?) what I felt was an important thing to note, which is that assumptions, which are ever-present, should be subject to scrutiny as much as the logic of an argument itself. This idea could dig us out of dead ends where both sides think they make sense yet disagree, due not to faulty logic but to varying underlying assumptions.

and

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

Hence my point... when you use logic to come to a conclusion, disagreeing with only ONE of your premises may lead me to reject your conclusion. To reiterate, an atheist might base a part of his argument on "the universe could have come about on its own". If I reject that premise as true, I may reject his ultimate conclusion that God does not exist. It does not mean his argument was not logical, as it may have been sound logic. There may not have been any fallacies in his reasoning. But if I don't agree with the premises, I have no reason to accept that conclusion.

That or you want everyone to be open to changing the most basic assumptions they make. Which isn't going to happen because they are so intertwined with our sense of self as to be inviolate.

Actually, the assumptions some people make in their arguments, sometimes without realizing it, are not necessarily as much a part of their "core beliefs" as the things we've been discussing are. It's the more tacked-on assumptions that often seem to accompany religious logical arguments that I aim to attack. Should we ever actually get back on track.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by ZaktheGeek

I imagine people didn't feel like getting in the middle of our shitstorm.

I imagine that people don't like getting an email for a subscription notification, and then sighing when they realize it's just more of the same shitstorm.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Originally Posted by Sith

Reality is real and apart from human observation. At the same time everything we observe has to be a subset of that reality. Therefore, if we observed something wrong actual reality independent of our observations would be changed by our observations. Thus, humans would be capable of bending reality to their wills and reality would have no meaning. Since this isn't true the converse of this must be true. Therefore, our senses are limited but do not lie.

But Sith, Chinese scientists, using Western equipment, a qigong master and a glass of water, have proved just
that.

But no one will ever take them seriously. You know why? Because the Western scientists will want to verify the results, and western scientists will, without fail, piss off any qigong masters willing to help, and they'll withdraw aid. It's happened repeatedly. Some were even telling the qigong master that they tried working with what, exactly, they should make a human subject do, even after that master told them that once he transmitted the qi to them, the subjects would be out of his control.

Take from that article what you will, but I know you'll find something from the west that "disproves" it. I've felt the effects of qi, and I know first hand that it's not some "figment of my imagination". I, without prejudice either way, read of a way to induce qi flow in one of Wong Kiew Kit's books, and attempted it, even with warnings about practice without a living teach in said book. Needless to say from that statement and my current stance, you'll gather that I had some slight success. Let's just say that it's very improbable that those movements I felt were muscle spasms, or anything other than what Sifu claims they are.