It's true that those religions aren't a problem, neither is Jainism. But extremism isn't the problem either. Islam (and other religions that advocate murdering non-believers) is the problem. You have nothing to fear from an extreme Jainist.
Everyone's a comedian; as it happens, I've been educating myself on this subject; not because of this thread, but of because of my recent interest in US politics. Admittedly, I didn't spend every waking minute doing so.
Since you mention it - what have you been up to this summer? Any intellectual pursuits?
1. Until recently, I wasted a lot of time playing chess online.
2. In May, I gave a lecture at the South Bay Creation Science Association.
3. I gave an apologetics lecture at my church about a month ago.
4. I am writing a short e-book on the topic of the reliability of the Holy Bible.
5. I am currently reading a book on logical fallacies.
I would never be upset if someone said a real person I talk with was imaginary, I would just laugh at it because I know the person is real. If anyone reacts poorly to you calling their deity imaginary, that only proves that they know on some level it is (or at least could be) true. This upsets them because of cognitive dissonance. If they were as certain of their deity as I am of my real-life friends, they would just laugh it off as well.
Much as I am loath to admit it, I'm with Aaron on this. This is a trivial variation of the playground "truth hurts, doesn't it" poke, and it's simply not grounded in reality. A lot of things hurt, not just the truth - and that is also kinda the point.
Last edited by d2_e4; 11-10-2017 at 04:42 PM.
Reason: Gotta balance that hurting range
1. Until recently, I wasted a lot of time playing chess online.
2. In May, I gave a lecture at the South Bay Creation Science Association.
3. I gave an apologetics lecture at my church about a month ago.
4. I am writing a short e-book on the topic of the reliability of the Holy Bible.
5. I am currently reading a book on logical fallacies.
I apologise for my facetious comment - I thought you were a troll. That's quite the resume for one summer.
PM me if you want to play chess some time. I am not very good, but my granddad taught me and he was a GM, so some of it may have rubbed off.
That's one you're going to have to figure out for yourself. I will simply point out that I made a claim, and you repeated it back to me as a true statement.
And who says religious people are humourless pr... oops, caught my tongue there!
It's just a consequence of the assumption of the completeness of the real numbers. Nothing fancy.
$\mathbb{Q}[\sqrt{\pi}] \subseteq \mathbb{R}$
I don't mean to derail again, but this has been bothering me. I'm not familiar with the syntax, but does this suggest rt pi is rational? What does Q[rt pi] mean?
Last edited by d2_e4; 11-10-2017 at 08:10 PM.
Reason: You're the mathematician, but I thought transcendental numbers didn't have rational roots?
It also seems like you went out of your way to point out in a massively esoteric way that rt(pi) is a real number?
Edit: I'm a software developer, and for the last 10+ years I've specialised in databases and cubes. There is a specific syntax for both writing and querying cubes, and it's pretty much based on the concepts of tuples and sets; so I am familiar with these concepts beyond an elementary level.
While I am not as versed in the arcane minutiae of number theory as you are, I can see when someone is trying to purposely trying to obfuscate something; I do the same in code.
Just stop patronising me. If you debate in good faith, you might actually find me an interesting sparring partner. "Good faith", ironically, is something I have yet to see you exhibit in this thread, or any other to which you have contributed.
Edit 2: I tried to read that Wikipedia article, and I can't understand it. I'm just too dumb I guess. Just explain to me like a child why Q[rt pi] is a thing? Why would pi ever have anything to do with the rationals? It's not even algebraic, let alone rational.
Just stop patronising me. If you debate in good faith, you might actually find me an interesting sparring partner. "Good faith", ironically, is something I have yet to see you exhibit in this thread, or any other to which you have contributed..
In my opinion, Aaron typically debates in good faith when the person he is debating seems to be putting forth some honest effort in politely and rationally engaging the topic at hand. As a former community college logic instructor, it seems to me that there is not a lot of reason to think that you are consistently making an honest effort to employ critical thinking skills at a level commensurate with the rather weighty topics being discussed.
I'm not trying to be patronizing myself here, but in my opinion you are obviously very intelligent and are fully capable of engaging the topics in a rational and winsome manner. But as a rule, I just don't see it.
Full disclosure alert: Since Aaron and I are both Christians and are "on the same page" on most things, I might be biased in viewing Aaron more favorably and you less favorably in terms of behavior ITT.
It also seems like you went out of your way to point out in a massively esoteric way that rt(pi) is a real number?
Partly yes, but more it was just pointing out how dull of a topic it is to talk about squaring a circle at this point. The math is absolutely clear. The understanding of the concepts in question is absolutely clear. The relevance to the conversation... muddled and pointless at best.
Quote:
Just stop patronising me. If you debate in good faith, you might actually find me an interesting sparring partner. "Good faith", ironically, is something I have yet to see you exhibit in this thread, or any other to which you have contributed.
At this point, I don't have much reason to think you have anything to offer. You've given nothing short of intellectual nonsense for the entire length of this thread, starting with your opening salvo of making up your own facts about William of Ockham, to your triumphant declarations of "Boom -
Headshot!" without understanding that the gun was pointed at your own head, to your declaration that I'm personally responsible for things that people who don't know me or know anything about me say, think, and do, to your LOL-tastic outburst after a time of dead silence in a feeble attempt to get yourself banned (which probably would have been better for you).
So I find it utterly laughable that you're trying to claim something about arguing in "good faith."
Quote:
Edit 2: I tried to read that Wikipedia article, and I can't understand it. I'm just too dumb I guess. Just explain to me like a child why Q[rt pi] is a thing? Why would pi ever have anything to do with the rationals? It's not even algebraic, let alone rational.
It's just the exploration of numbers and how they behave. Sometimes you add things, and you only get "some" new objects. For example, take the rationals and adjoin the square root of 2. You have something that has some interesting properties, but are somehow limited (the degree of the extension is 2).
But there are other times you get something much, much larger, leading to an extension of infinite degree. That is, in fact, what it means for something to be "transcendental" (which is a word you've been throwing around but I don't know if you actually understand it).
Partly yes, but more it was just pointing out how dull of a topic it is to talk about squaring a circle at this point. The math is absolutely clear. The understanding of the concepts in question is absolutely clear. The relevance to the conversation... muddled and pointless at best.
As clear as evolution or anthropogenic climate change, one would have thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
...to your declaration that I'm personally responsible for things that people who don't know me or know anything about me say, think, and do
If it weren't for intellectuals like you lending credibility to movements that, at their core, hold anti-science ideals, they might die out a lot sooner. So yes, I hold you personally, and your apologist brethren collectively responsible.
As clear as evolution or anthropogenic climate change, one would have thought.
If it weren't for intellectuals like you lending credibility to movements that, at their core, hold anti-science ideals, they might die out a lot sooner. So yes, I hold you personally, and your apologist brethren collectively responsible.
Please provide a link to any leading Christian apologist (e.g. William Lane Craig, john Lennox, James White, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, etc.) who has made a statement that could be accurately labeled "anti-science."
Please provide a link to any leading Christian apologist (e.g. William Lane Craig, john Lennox, James White, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, etc.) who has made a statement that could be accurately labeled "anti-science."
Thank you and have a blessed day.
But that's not what I said though, it's what you heard. I specifically said the apologists "provide credibility to movements that are, at their core, anti-science". I did not say the apologists made anti-science statements themselves.
I hope you can see the distinction, and have a blessed day.
Edit: unless, of course, you mean to suggest, that religion is not "at its core, anti-science?"
Oh, and another thing Aaron. If you fear violating etiquette too much correct someone in a social setting who not only espouses anti-evolution views, but suggests that you share them, then, while you may or may not be part of the problem, you are certainly not part of the solution.
But that's not what I said though, it's what you heard. I specifically said the apologists "provide credibility to movements that are, at their core, anti-science". I did not say the apologists made anti-science statements themselves.
I hope you can see the distinction, and have a blessed day.
Edit: unless, of course, you mean to suggest, that religion is not "at its core, anti-science?"
Christianity is pro-science. I can't speak for other religions regarding their attitudes towards science. That there are a lot of Christians that are "anti-science" just shows that there are some Christians who are ignorant about the nature of science.
It is a FACT that Christians have historically been at the forefront of scientific developments. Maybe you forgot that Galileo, for example, was a Christian. Ever heard of Rene Descartes? If you'd like, I can provide a long list of Christians who were giants in various branches of science.
Not that you typically show any interest in facts.
Christianity is pro-science. I can't speak for other religions regarding their attitudes towards science. That there are a lot of Christians that are "anti-science" just shows that there are some Christians who are ignorant about the nature of science.
It is a FACT that Christians have historically been at the forefront of scientific developments. Maybe you forgot that Galileo, for example, was a Christian. Ever heard of Rene Descartes? If you'd like, I can provide a long list of Christians who were giants in various branches of science.
Not that you typically show any interest in facts.
On the contrary, I am fascinated by facts. Please name a Christian who has been at the "forefront of science" in the last 100 years.
Christianity is pro-science. I can't speak for other religions regarding their attitudes towards science. That there are a lot of Christians that are "anti-science" just shows that there are some Christians who are ignorant about the nature of science.
It is a FACT that Christians have historically been at the forefront of scientific developments. Maybe you forgot that Galileo, for example, was a Christian. Ever heard of Rene Descartes? If you'd like, I can provide a long list of Christians who were giants in various branches of science.
Not that you typically show any interest in facts.
What does "pro-science" mean in this context? Sounds suspiciously like a statement along the lines of "why can't science and religion co-exist and we can all be friends?" Well, the reason is, no religion (at least of the 3 monotheistic major ones) is "pro-science", pretty much by definition. These religions begrudgingly accept scientific developments and try to insert their god into the gaps, which get smaller and fewer as science progresses. Science and religion are anathema to one another, antonyms. A "pro-science" Christian(or Jew, or Muslim) is an oxymoron.
It is a FACT that Christians have historically been at the forefront of scientific developments. Maybe you forgot that Galileo, for example, was a Christian.
Lol, great example. He was a Christian until they excommunicated him because of his scientific progress, and then sentenced him to life imprisonment for it. This is a far better way to show how anti-science the church can be.
A "pro-science" Christian(or Jew, or Muslim) is an oxymoron.
This statement proves that you're one of three things: a troll, an idiot, or are willfully ignorant.
William Phillips, a Christian, was the co-winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize for Physics. Hard to get any more "pro-science" than to win the Nobel Prize for Physics.
Until you at least make some effort to say something intelligent, I'll let Aaron and you continue this conversation.
I'll enjoy watching him intellectually humiliate you in a public forum.
Yep, seems like the Christians I've learnt to know and despise. Why do you even bother with the pretense?
Or do you just use the word "peace" to mean "bye" or something?
I desire for you the same peace and joy that I have by being a follower of Jesus Christ. Aaron has far more patience with pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself than I do. I hope that a public intellectual flogging will make you reflect on your rebellion against God, and that instead of railing against Him that you will instead be a follower of Him.
If it weren't for intellectuals like you lending credibility to movements that, at their core, hold anti-science ideals, they might die out a lot sooner. So yes, I hold you personally, and your apologist brethren collectively responsible.
If it weren't for anti-intellectuals like you propagating the perception that atheists are a bunch of arrogant morons who can't actually argue against Christianity, there would be more atheists and fewer religious people. You're making it easier for Christians to remain Christian.
Clearly, you're responsible for everything that's wrong with the world.
Last edited by Aaron W.; 11-12-2017 at 02:55 AM.
Reason: n't
