• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

From CNN : America losing its religion

zgoldsmith23 said:
Okay, well I'll take back my technology, vaccines, medications, etc.. Good luck!
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding the point. (another prime example of the divide between these camps)

As a computer scientist I LOVE understanding the physical world; it's one of my driving interests.

I don't stop there though, which is where you MUST stop as an empirical-physical-only-thinker. Higher conceptions than 'natural selection' don't exist for the anti-religious-philosophical; they are illusions.

For us religious people those higher conceptions which overturn 'natural selection' ethics are not illusory, but reality.

You're Aristotelian, I'm Platonist, from a Greek perspective.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
From a purely physical analysis of the natural world, yes.

From a philosophical perspective, no. The philosophical conceptions of religion are separate and distinct from physical realities. Ethics / morality are the perfect example of this.

The empiricist-atheist-thinker can only make biological 'natural selection' arguments for moral conception while the religious-spiritual-philosophical thinker abstracts the ideas into a higher realm.
Click to expand...

Conceptions of religion ARE a part of physical realities. A god that interferes in the physical world? That's a physical reality. Claim a human has a soul? That's a physical reality.

"The empiricist-atheist-thinker can only make biological 'natural selection' arguments for moral conception while the religious-spiritual-philosophical thinker abstracts the ideas into a higher realm." ... needlessly.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
You're misunderstanding the point.

As a computer scientist I LOVE understanding the physical world; it's one of my driving interests.

I don't stop there though, which is where you MUST stop as an empirical-physical-only-thinker.
Click to expand...

And...?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
And...?
Click to expand...

I'm a de facto empiricist unimpeded by the physical-only conception of life :)

Observable data aren't the only 'facts' I adhere to!

Your insinuation that my aforementioned statements are a rejection of science isn't true. [I am a scientist]
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Conceptions of religion ARE a part of physical realities. A god that interferes in the physical world? That's a physical reality. Claim a human has a soul? That's a physical reality.

"The empiricist-atheist-thinker can only make biological 'natural selection' arguments for moral conception while the religious-spiritual-philosophical thinker abstracts the ideas into a higher realm." ... needlessly.
Click to expand...

See, again, you prove my point that these two camps will NEVER understand each other.

You think it's needless, and I find it to be the very purpose of life!

(you're welcome to the opinion, I simply reject it to the core of my being)

To you (I'm guessing) man is a biological android. Nothing more than evolved and congealed molecules.

The universe exists because it does, and other related arguments.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
I'm a de facto empiricist unimpeded by the physical-only conception of life :)

Observable data aren't the only 'facts' I adhere to!

Your insinuation that my aforementioned statements are a rejection of science isn't true. [I am a scientist]
Click to expand...

Really? Your credentials?
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
See, again, you prove my point that these two camps will NEVER understand each other.

You think it's needless, and I find it to be the very purpose of life!

(you're welcome to the opinion, I simply reject it to the core of my being)

To you (I'm guessing) man is a biological android. Nothing more than evolved and congealed molecules.

The universe exists because it does, and other related arguments.
Click to expand...

Purpose of life? Evolution tells us. Man certainly isn't a biological android, I'm not sure where your getting that crock from.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Purpose of life? Evolution tells us. Man certainly isn't a biological android, I'm not sure where your getting that crock from.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!

You're fundamental operating conception of life boils down to interchange at the molecular level.

According to you: There is nothing beyond the physical world. Ideas mean nothing, ethics are evolutionary responses, the universe simply exists.

Or am I wrong?

Religious thinkers reject this simplistic understanding of life; we see a higher tier of 'life' (loosely defined by abstractions, ideas and metaphor), a higher ideal.

Purpose and intent, not simply organic necessity and the 'pathway' universal properties carve out.
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
Master of Computer Science UW Platteville!

10 years at an engineering firm writing software!
Click to expand...

Ph.D. and Postdoctoral work?

I know Madison is a great research university; Platteville? Never even heard of it.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
EXACTLY!

You're fundamental operating conception of life boils down to interchange at the molecular level.

According to you: There is nothing beyond the physical world. Ideas mean nothing, ethics are evolutionary responses, the universe simply exists.

Or am I wrong?

Religious thinkers reject this simplistic understanding of life; we see a higher tier of life, a higher ideal. Purpose and intent, not simply organic necessity and the 'pathway' universal properties carve out.
Click to expand...

According to me? Quote the post where I said those things, please. Otherwise you're committing a fallacy.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Ph.D. and Postdoctoral work?

I know Madison is a great research university; Platteville? Never even heard of it.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you subscribe to the idea that only Ivy League academia can 'think'?

UW Platteville - sister school to Madison, in the UW system (where I live and work)
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
According to me? Quote the post where I said those things, please. Otherwise you're committing a fallacy.
Click to expand...

So you disagree?

There are abstractions which are 'fact' that exist outside of the physical observable world?

How about instead of misdirects, you focus on dealing with the argumentation?

You've already committed 2 of the most popular misdirects:

#1 "i didn't say that" even though your argument stems exactly from what I listed out, and would be inane not to ascribe to if you're arguing for a physical-only conception

#2 invalidate the argument because the arguer didn't graduate from a school you approve of

Next ...

insults?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Conceptions of religion ARE a part of physical realities. A god that interferes in the physical world? That's a physical reality. Claim a human has a soul? That's a physical reality.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Religion need not have a god that interferes in the physical world (ex Deism) nor claim that a human has a soul. Also, a soul need not be defined as a physical reality

PS - Basically, you committing the "sin" that OSO has claimed you've committed - requiring that everything be defined in a materialistic manner. In fact, you've gone further and argued that things can only be defined in a materialistic manner
 
Last edited:
SingleCellOrganism said:
So you disagree?

There are abstractions which are 'fact' that exist outside of the physical observable world?
Click to expand...

Negative.

How about instead of misdirects, you focus on dealing with the argumentation?
Click to expand...

Such as?

You've already committed 2 of the most popular misdirects:

#1 "i didn't say that" even though your argument stems exactly from what I listed out, and would be inane not to ascribe to if you're arguing for a physical-only conception
Click to expand...

So now you're telling me my argument. Fantastic. :roll:

#2 invalidate the argument because the arguer didn't graduate from a school you approve of

Next ...

insults?
Click to expand...

Well education is a part of it. :shrug:
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
The globe is warming. Man is contributing to it.

We should probably look for ways to decrease our contribution to the negative impact.

Next?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see you didn't read the discussion that occurred. Did they not teach you that at UW-"Platt," either?
 
sangha said:
Nonsense. Religion need not have a god that interferes in the physical world (ex Deism) nor claim that a human has a soul. Also, a soul need not be defined as a physical reality
Click to expand...

Certainly not. They aren't absolute, those were merely examples.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Ah, I see you didn't read the discussion that occurred. Did they not teach you that at UW-"Platt," either?
Click to expand...

#3 insults

You've covered them all zgoldsmith!

[I'll admit that I didn't read your link, as you noted. I assumed you were simply attempting a misdirect / trap bringing global warming into the discussion]
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
#3 insults

You've covered them all zgoldsmith!

[I'll admit that I didn't read your link, as you noted. I assumed you were simply attempting a misdirect / trap bringing global warming into the discussion]
Click to expand...

Wrong. Not insulting, inquiring.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Negative.
Well education is a part of it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Right, and since I have a degree from a good school, in the sciences, where is the problem?

... and even if I didn't, where is the problem?

Doesn't this line of argumentation just seem petty?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Wrong. Not insulting, inquiring.
Click to expand...

Well you've succeeded in ignoring the argument I was making.

UW-"Platt" wasn't intended as an insult, eh?

LOL, you're sinking fast my friend.

If anyone is looking for rational discussion, not centered on the arguers 'school of choice', go to page 3 and catchup on why zgoldsmith has failed to produce a coherent argument.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
Right, and since I have a degree from a good school, in the sciences, where is the problem?

... and even if I didn't, where is the problem?

Doesn't this line of argumentation just seem petty?
Click to expand...

The problem lies in the education received, the quality of faculty, the funding available, and both the quantitative and qualitative research being done there.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2011.pdf Not seeing it there, either. UW-Madison is there, but no Platteville.
 
SingleCellOrganism said:
Well you've succeeded in ignoring the argument I was making.

UW-"Platt" wasn't intended as an insult, eh?

LOL, you're sinking fast my friend.

If anyone is looking for rational discussion, not centered on the arguers 'school of choice', go to page 3 and catchup on why zgoldsmith has failed to produce a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

How is abbreviating your "school's" name an insult? A coherent argument to fallacies where you falsely claim my argument without me stating any such thing. Riiiight. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom