Your Vote, Your Reasons

[Drachen]

Of course not. But we encourage people to research and find out, so one day e will know. What's so wrong with that? Not knowing something is a daily occurrence to a lot of people, myself included.

Now while I may side with your opinion on supernatural v. science, he is right about the fact that what the religious chalk up to the supernatural, others chalk up to ignorance. I don't know = ignorance, regardless of one's intentions to research what one doesn't know or not. He didn't say that it was chalked up to ignorance and leaves it alone, just that it gets chalked up to ignorance. Until one knows, they are ignorant of what they were searching. Now I don't know if you misunderstood him, or if you were just trying to counterpoint every single point he made just for the sake of counterpointing every single point he made, but at least in this instance, its a silly debate.

[ElNono]

IIRC, Einstein did prove that light behaves as both a particle and wave. (And again, IIRC won the Nobel Prize for that.)

No, I meant Einstein didn't prove anything with regards to the Uncertainty Principle.

[Drachen]

Don't think it was there - and back in the day, G-Town wasn't big enough for me to have missed anything in the 4 years I wandered and rolled it's streets. My brother graduated 5 years after me, I'll ask him about it. Now you've made me homesick, however; I'm in Pa now; and THERE ARE NO good hamburgers here, much less ones that comparable to the heart attack on a bun you describe.

Oh, it was ridiculous, I almost got sick the first time I went there from trying to eat the whole meal at one sitting. Wasn't going to happen! Well if you ask your bro, and are trying to jog his memory, tell him it was on the same side of MLK as the jail, but across the cross street (can't remember the name). I am very sad for you that there are no good hamburgers. Can't you go to western PA. I heard there are a lot of rednecks out there, surely one of them cooks good burgers and has a restaurant. :P

[ElNono]

Now while I may side with your opinion on supernatural v. science, he is right about the fact that what the religious chalk up to the supernatural, others chalk up to ignorance. I don't know = ignorance, regardless of one's intentions to research what one doesn't know or not. He didn't say that it was chalked up to ignorance and leaves it alone, just that it gets chalked up to ignorance. Until one knows, they are ignorant of what they were searching. Now I don't know if you misunderstood him, or if you were just trying to counterpoint every single point he made just for the sake of counterpointing every single point he made, but at least in this instance, its a silly debate.

Thanks. I *did* understand it that way. That's why I agreed that I didn't know. That ignorance is a necessary state in science. It's what sparks research. I think it's important to remark science doesn't stop at that point. It actually encourages finding a rational answer to that unknown. Religion, on the other hand, once you assigned it to the supernatural, that's exactly where you stop.

[Drachen]

Thanks. I *did* understand it that way. That's why I agreed that I didn't know. That ignorance is a necessary state in science. It's what sparks research. I think it's important to remark science doesn't stop at that point. It actually encourages finding a rational answer to that unknown. Religion, on the other hand, once you assigned it to the supernatural, that's exactly where you stop.

In that point he wasn't debating anything other than "religion chalks up to supernatural, what science chalks up to ignorance" which is true. I understand the debate about where each goes from there, but you had chosen to say that it does not chalk it up to ignorance, instead it sparks interest in research. The latter is true, the former is false. It just seemed like there was either a misunderstanding, or you were trying to get into a silly pissing match about this word ignorance.

[ElNono]

In that point he wasn't debating anything other than "religion chalks up to supernatural, what science chalks up to ignorance" which is true. I understand the debate about where each goes from there, but you had chosen to say that it does not chalk it up to ignorance, instead it sparks interest in research. The latter is true, the former is false. It just seemed like there was either a misunderstanding, or you were trying to get into a silly pissing match about this word ignorance.

I probably didn't understood him when he put it that way, then. Thanks for pointing it out!

[Drachen]

Np

[Trainwreck2100]

[QUOTE=ElNono;2846889]Einstein didn't prove anything. He proposed an idea it so we can have further research into it. Gee, you're slow.



?????




Not really, no. If say, an alien race were to show up and claim and factually prove they created us, then that would be a valid way to prove that god doesn't exist, regardless wether you believe or not. My question was wether you would still believe after such hypothetical case played out.

Aliens you're arguing God's existense with Aliens
Of course not. But we encourage people to research and find out, so one day e will know. What's so wrong with that? Not knowing something is a daily occurrence to a lot of people, myself included.





LOL, your analogy fails because there's no actual factual way to determine when you stop being a 'kid'. I'll give you a better analogy of how theory-to-law works: You were once a student, but after passing all the respective tests, you're now a graduate.
Does that mean you were once a student? Sure. But in order to be a graduate, your knowledge had to be scrutinized and tested. Not all theories become law. Not all students become graduates.

A scientific law was a theory VERIFIED and SCRUTINIZED to be factual. It's not longer a theory, it's a law.

ok i'm gonna go slowly here for ya,
1st is the hypthothesis
Lets call him Harry the hypothesis.
Now harry worked long and hard to come up with something and finally he invented a little guy he named the"ory"
Everyone liked the"ory" it made sense, it worked well, nobody could find flaws, and it got accepted into law school.

Now Back to your analogy, Not all students are graduates but all graduates were once students. So since you are saying calling a graduate a student would be wrong. I guess to you graduates just poof out of nowhere.

How can you deny that laws are accepted theories, if nobody accepts them, they are not laws. The only reason they would not be accepted is if they were proven non factual. They were once theories, and now they are laws accepted as truth.

Nobody 'accepts' science when they don't understand it. Science doesn't asks you to take theories at face value. Science asks you to help scrutinize, test and validate those theories so one day they can be a scientific law, or they can be debunked. On the other hand, Religion asks you to accept it without room for scrutiny. They're two completely different things.

So if i were to walk up to a race car driver on the street and ask them to tell me Newton's 1st law and explain to me all the details including symbols and what they mean, would they be able to do that?

[ElNono]

Not really, no. If say, an alien race were to show up and claim and factually prove they created us, then that would be a valid way to prove that god doesn't exist, regardless wether you believe or not. My question was wether you would still believe after such hypothetical case played out.

Aliens you're arguing God's existense with Aliens

I really don't understand why religious people dodge this question so much.
It's just an hypothesis. Would you you still believe in god if he was factually proven not to exist (Aliens or no Aliens)?

LOL, your analogy fails because there's no actual factual way to determine when you stop being a 'kid'. I'll give you a better analogy of how theory-to-law works: You were once a student, but after passing all the respective tests, you're now a graduate.
Does that mean you were once a student? Sure. But in order to be a graduate, your knowledge had to be scrutinized and tested. Not all theories become law. Not all students become graduates.

And yet all graduates were once students. So since you are saying calling a graduate a student would be wrong. I guess to you graduates just poof out of nowhere. Just because they are a graduate doesn't make them not a student. When a pre-med student graduates with a bio bachelor's he's not a student anymore so go ahead pre-med graduate cut me open.

You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.

Nobody 'accepts' science when they don't understand it. Science doesn't asks you to take theories at face value. Science asks you to help scrutinize, test and validate those theories so one day they can be a scientific law, or they can be debunked. On the other hand, Religion asks you to accept it without room for scrutiny. They're two completely different things.

So if i were to walk up to a race car driver on the street and ask them to tell me Newton's 1st law and explain to me all the details including symbols and what they mean, would they be able to do that?

Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.

[Trainwreck2100]

[QUOTE=ElNono;2848334]I really don't understand why religious people dodge this question so much.
It's just an hypothesis. Would you you still believe in god if he was factually proven not to exist (Aliens or no Aliens)?



You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.



Really do you have scientific proof that it is irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant to you.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that
Accepted theories=laws
non accepted theory=not laws
I'm not quite sure you understand thatwhen a theory is tested and proven for validity it becomes accepted as a law. , but we'll get there.


Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.
[/COLOR]
I could tell the guy "it's what makes your car go" and let's say he believes me. He doesn't know what it is yet he believes that its what makes his car go cause a guy told him that to be truth.

[ElNono]

You keep flipping it around. Not all students become graduates. And the reason they graduated it's because they went through rigorous testing. Whether they were students or if they still are is irrelevant. In order to be a graduate you have to pass scrutiny and testing. If all of a theory's claim passed scrutiny and testing, then it's a scientific law. That it once was a theory is completely irrelevant at that point.

Really do you have scientific proof that it is irrelevant, or is it just irrelevant to you.

As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that
Accepted theories=laws
non accepted theory=not laws

Just so you know when a theory is tested and proven for validity it becomes accepted as a law.

That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now. I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?

]
Only if the driver had a previous interest in Newton's 1st law. The thing is, if you truly had an interest in that law, it's a lot easier to go to Wikipedia or a library than going to a 'race car driver on the street' for that information.

I could tell the guy "it's what makes your car go" and let's say he believes me. He doesn't know what it is yet he believes that its what makes his car go cause a guy told him that to be truth.

Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.

[Trainwreck2100]

As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.


That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now. I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?


Actually I've been saying that longer than you, I've been saying it this whole time. I never said that it was invalidated, point me to where i said its invalidated. You agree that Accepted theory=law so if they are equal, one should be able to call a law an accepted theory because they are the same thing.

I'll make it easy for you if 2x2=4 then you could also say 4=2x2 both would be correct.

when something equals something, it's origins don't vanish
Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.

the capability for scrutiny is there but do most people scrutinize or do they just believe it cause it was told to them?

[ElNono]

As defined by scientific method, yes, it's a fact that once all of the theory's claims are verified it no longer is classified a theory and it attains the level of scientific law. At that point it's a fact that the original proposition is no longer a theory, but a law, and all it's claims have been verified.
That's actually what I've been telling you for a while now.[/COLOR] I'm glad we're making progress here. Now, how does the fact that a scientific law was a theory before it was verified somehow invalidated the law's credibility?

Actually I've been saying that longer than you, I've been saying it this whole time. I never said that it was invalidated, point me to where i said its invalidated. You agree that Accepted theory=law so if they are equal, one should be able to call a law an accepted theory because they are the same thing.
I'll make it easy for you if 2x2=4 then you could also say 4=2x2 both would be correct.
when something equals something, it's origins don't vanish

The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.

Actually, he trusts that what you told him is true. Now, this driver can easily go and verify if what you told him is actually right or wrong. That's called scrutiny, and it's what religion doesn't have.

the capability for scrutiny is there but do most people scrutinize or do they just believe it cause it was told to them?

That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

[Trainwreck2100]

The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.

I used the word accept
That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

Well I didn't say "elnono follows it blindly" i said it was like religion. Do you acknowledge that there are people out there who follow science without scrutinizing. Not scientists, but normal people, who accept things as facts just because it was told to them?

[ElNono]

The problem is that you simply used the term 'theory', and not 'accepted theory' or 'verified theory' or simply 'law'. The word theory when used alone implies that there are claims on it that have not been verified.

I used the word accept

LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.

That's a personal choice. I personally like to scrutinize if I'm not familiar with what's being suggested to me. That's exactly why you can't just generalize.

Well I didn't say "elnono follows it blindly" i said it was like religion. Do you acknowledge that there are people out there who follow science without scrutinizing. Not scientists, but normal people, who accept things as facts just because it was told to them?

Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

[Trainwreck2100]

LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.

I wasn't takling about you i was talking about science and the only time theory is accepted as fact in science is when its a law.

Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

i'm not talking about opinions i'm talking about what people say are facts

[Mr. Peabody]

I don't know if Trainwreck is being "sarcastic" in all of his posts or if he just doesn't like to use the quote function. I'm so confused.....

[ploto]

I knew I had a busy week but I can not believe I missed this entire thread. All I ask is that people do not stereotype all people of faith based upon a small sampling.

[ElNono]

LOL, now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote: "You accept theory as fact".
I certainly do not.

I wasn't takling about you i was talking about science and the only time theory is accepted as fact in science is when its a law.

Great! Finally on the same page. That surely took long enough!

Now, there's certainly people out there that believes anything you tell them. But saying that 'most people' do is generalizing. Most of the people I know will scrutinize an opinion when they suspect it's bullcrap.

i'm not talking about opinions i'm talking about what people say are facts

How do you know anything is a fact? Either a) you already researched it and you know it's a fact, or b) you don't know about it and you actually care, so you go and research it and find out it's a fact.
I don't know any other conditions. Do you?

[ploto]

I tried to read the entire thread but I am still confused about one thing.

Did Angel ever explain why it is that she holds Obama to such a high level of scrutiny and standard to which she does not hold McCain to. From what I could see, she kept moving the bar with regards to the "proof" she needed about Obama, but McCain saying he prayed while a POW was enough to satisfy her.

I have no problem with a person choosing to base their vote upon faith (people base it on all kinds of things) but shouldn't they at least have the proper information about the candidate's faith to make that an informed choice about faith? I did not see her sending letters to McCain asking for proof of anything to which she expected of Obama. She also stated that Obama might misuse the power of the office but she was sure McCain would not-- how?

If she had researched the candidates she would know that McCain as much as any recent Republican has distanced himself from the far right religious conservative faction of the Republican party. I still do not know how she has come to this assurance that McCain is more Christian than Obama- since that is how she said she would vote.

I also think it is misinformed to believe that every Christian is going to hold to the exact same form of Christianity to which one professes.

Angel- do you even think that all people who claim to be Christian are saved- or only the ones who agree with you on everything. For example, are only fundamentalist Christians saved- because lots of Christians around the world are not Biblical literalists. The notion of fundamentalist Christianity is, if I remember correctly, very much an American movement of the past 100 to 150 or so years.

[LnGrrrR]

I think we've all determined that Angel, nice though she may be, is quite good at rationalization.

[Spurminator]

Are we still talking about who we voted for?

If so, I voted Democrat for President, Republican for U.S. Senate and Reps, Democrat for State Senate and Reps, Republican for Supreme Court judges, Democrat for Criminal Court and Appeals judges, and I think I threw in a Libertarian for Railroad Commissioner or something.

[MannyIsGod]

Are we still talking about who we voted for?

If so, I voted Democrat for President, Republican for U.S. Senate and Reps, Democrat for State Senate and Reps, Republican for Supreme Court judges, Democrat for Criminal Court and Appeals judges, and I think I threw in a Libertarian for Railroad Commissioner or something.

Can I ask why you voted for Cornyn? I'm just curious, not looking to attack your view.

[Spurminator]

Can I ask why you voted for Cornyn? I'm just curious, not looking to attack your view.

I wish I had a better answer but it was really a last minute decision based on my hesitation to help Democrats gain seats in the Senate.

[MannyIsGod]

I wish I had a better answer but it was really a last minute decision based on my hesitation to help Democrats gain seats in the Senate.

I kinda figured as much because I was going to do the same, but after I researched some of Cornyn's positions relative to my interests I decided not to. That being said I think he should have this election pretty much locked up barring a huge surprise. I don't think he represents the 60th or even 61st seat for the Dems but the 64th or 65th.