|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dik-Dik Van Dik
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
76 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2005 : 12:54:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I am a Logical Deist. There is a growing number of us on the web.
A logical deist is a Skeptic, a Fatalist, and an Optimist.
fair enough, sounds reasonable...
quote:
If there is evidence that a thing is true we say it is true.
If there is evidence that a thing is false we say it is false.
But if there is no evidence, or there is not enough information to decide one way or the other we say there is not enough information to make a decision.
Right thats the logic part... sounds good so far...
quote:
The Logical Deists believe in the concept of the soul. In fact, it is an integral part of the philosophy. To a Logical Deist, ones soul is the manifestation of ones Graviton (essentially One Soul = One Graviton).
oh well
quote:
In uber-reality (The Omniverse ), we are all simply particles obeying the laws of Gravity (Fate). This universe is an elaboration of that reality created and transmitted by the Top Graviton (i.e. God, or as the LD call Her The Logical Goddess).
Erm question... Is this use of the word graviton to make the whole thing sound scientific? Or do you actually believe souls have gravity?
quote:
Logical Deists are also Fatalist (i.e. hard core Determinist). We do not believe in the concept of free will. Reality is governed by a set of objective Laws (i.e. the Laws of Physics). One of these laws binds us all including God, But the other 3 laws (weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and eletro-magnetism) are the creation and mechanism of control of the Goddess.
What was that about evidence you said at the start? Wouldn't control of these forces fall into the third category?
quote:
The Logical Deists define God as A Superior entity capable of generating a universe. The evidence indicates that God is gender female (a Goddess).
Right the evidence....of course. erm... anyone else think they should strike the word logical from their name? |
DARWIN 3:16
"The simple believeth every word." - Proverbs 14:15
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2005 : 22:35:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Right the evidence....of course. erm... anyone else think they should strike the word logical from their name?
Replace it, at the least.
It was really funny when he claims to not accept unevidenced claims, then procedes to make several claims that are entirely without evidenciary support.
Honestly, I thought it was a joke or something...
I mean... c'mon! Omniverse, soul=1 graviton, gravity = fate, god=top graviton=logical goddess.... that is some funny shiite.
Especially when it follows this statement: quote:
If there is evidence that a thing is true we say it is true.
If there is evidence that a thing is false we say it is false.
But if there is no evidence, or there is not enough information to decide one way or the other we say there is not enough information to make a decision
I'm not kidding.... I thought it was a joke or something. But as the punch-line hasn't yet been delivered...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 03:34:41 [Permalink]
|
In any event, we seem to have lost our new friend. Or perhaps he's just having a good weekend and will return tomorrow. Hope so.
From the Book of Piscivorus: "It is well to take leasure in the times that one may. But never forget that pleasures are fleeting; merely the brief illusion of a peacful mind and a joyful spirit. These are soon given over to the mundane, but an arsenic lollipop is sweet and will last a lifetime."
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 12:10:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
filthy, have you heard the motto of the Non-Sequitor Society? "We don't make sense, but we sure like pizza!"
Actually no, but they sound like a high-minded assemblage of profound thinkers, if indeed they put anchovies on that pizza.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 13:00:58 [Permalink]
|
| Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations? |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2005 : 15:05:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Franko
I am a Logical Deist...Sent by the Logical Goddess to battle the Skeptics. I have Returned from the abyss at the will of the Goddess. I have risen once more!
Just what we need. Another risen savior (god).
btw. Let the battle begin. I have already beaten the christian devil by simply changing my mind.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 17:41:31 [Permalink]
|
*twitch's at the "logical deist"*
I'm not exactly sure where to start with this. Without getting into questions like why a nonphysical entity such as a deity needs gender, I'd like to point out it IS possible to be both logical and skeptical and have faith. Logic only goes so far; to put it bluntly, logic itself is questionable because its language, like all languages, has certain assumptions built into it. At some level, one needs to simply say, the chances of being wrong are small enough for me to accept this as, at least mostly, true. Faith must be tempered with skepticism, which is why I'm on this forum after all. The important thing to realize is that people WANT to believe. Thus, people believe that religion brings truth, be that religion Christianity, Hinduism, Daoism, or Science.
You know why I believe in the Scientific method? Because it has held up well enough under inductive scrutiny to be useful, and I WANT useful things.
You know why I believe in extraterrestrial intelligence? Because the universe would be an abhorrent waste of space if humans were the extent of it, and I don't WANT the universe to be ugly.
|
 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 17:53:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Thus, people believe that religion brings truth, be that religion Christianity, Hinduism, Daoism, or Science.
Is it your opinion, then, that Science is a religion?
And welcome to the SFN.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 18:04:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is it your opinion, then, that Science is a religion?
I believe that it tends to be, though I'm not sure it HAS to be. How do you define a religion? Is it something that involves creationism and a god? Well that bumps out a lot of religions like Daoism that don't canonically involve a divine entity. If, instead, you define a religion as an organized system of beliefs intended to be shared by many individuals, often with related informational texts, then science surely qualifies. People have been as zealotous in their dedication to a geocentric universe as in their dedication to reclaiming Jerusalem. Folks like Thomas Kuhn (see: The Structures of Scientific Revolutions) make great points about how science has shifted back and forth so much over the years that it's hard to claim that science is really pinning down this elusive thing we call Truth. In that respect, justifying beliefs on a science textbook isn't much different than justifying beliefs on the Quran.
And don't forget my good friend the Pessimistic Induction:
In the history of science, all theories have "proven" to be, at least on a technical level, false within about 150 years from their general acceptance. Therefore, we can induct that such will hold true for all future theories.
G.
PS. Glad to be here ^_^ |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 18:45:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So is your argument that because we have been wrong in the past, we are wrong now?
My argument is that because we have been wrong in the past, we COULD be wrong now.
quote:
And when have you ever heard of science claiming that is the absolute truth? That is the exact opposite of science. Science is always changing, when it is wrong, that is. Whether science can discover absolute truth or not doesn't matter, that isn't what it is for.
See: Heliocentric vs. Geocentric, The Longitude Board, The Big Bang (when have you even heard anyone even CONSIDER there might be another non-creationist origin to the universe?), etc.
quote:
Not at all, science tries to find out when it is wrong, and changes itself accordingly.
I agree with you that this is a definition of IDEAL science, but I think it's naive to think that things like politics don't come into play. If you believe that science is, on the whole, beyond corruption, I definately would classify it as a religion. The Bible-Beaters say the same thing about the Church.
quote:
Science is also based on evidence and logic. That is much different from the Quran.
But, as I've said, I don't personally think that logic is infallible. Again, if you think that logic is infallible, logic is a religion. They say the same thing about the Bible.
G |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 18:56:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
I believe that it tends to be, though I'm not sure it HAS to be. How do you define a religion? Is it something that involves creationism and a god? Well that bumps out a lot of religions like Daoism that don't canonically involve a divine entity. If, instead, you define a religion as an organized system of beliefs intended to be shared by many individuals, often with related informational texts, then science surely qualifies.
And so does quilting, and interior design, and gardening. In other words, that definition of "religion" encompasses everything which people teach to each other. And because it's so broad, it becomes meaning-free.
Religions tend to involve devotional activities, with a canonical deity or without. Do scientists do things like pray or meditate in order to do science?quote:
People have been as zealotous in their dedication to a geocentric universe as in their dedication to reclaiming Jerusalem.
Yes, and for precisely the same reason: God. Geocentrism was Church doctrine, and early "scientists" followed it dogmatically. But the modern practice of science is just a little over 200 years old, far younger than Galilleo's heresy.quote:
Folks like Thomas Kuhn (see: The Structures of Scientific Revolutions) make great points about how science has shifted back and forth so much over the years that it's hard to claim that science is really pinning down this elusive thing we call Truth.
Ah, yes, Kuhn: the darling of the postmodernists. It's a real shame that people abuse his hypotheses so badly that he himself got disgusted.quote:
In that respect, justifying beliefs on a science textbook isn't much different than justifying beliefs on the Quran.
Anyone who understands the process of science also understands that textbooks are only one of the first steps in teaching science. Nobody in their right mind "justifies" any scientific position only upon a textbook.quote:
And don't forget my good friend the Pessimistic Induction:
In the history of science, all theories have "proven" to be, at least on a technical level, false within about 150 years from their general acceptance. Therefore, we can induct that such will hold true for all future theories.
I believe that theory was disproven well over 50 years ago. In point of fact, despite Einstein's corrections to Newton "on a technical level," Newton's laws and theories are still useful today, and they're still widely taught today. Newton's theories are not "false," they just require a correction under extreme circumstances.
And you're a practical person who wants useful things, you say. Nobody in, for example, NASCAR gives a rat's ass that a stock car is 64 quadrillionths of an inch shorter at 200 MPH than at rest, because there's no practical way to measure that difference, or put it to use to win a race. Einstein's theories don't do useful things at the race track (except GPS, of course), and Newton rules. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/09/2005 : 19:16:26 [Permalink]
|
This is fun ^_^
Annnyway...
quote:
And so does quilting, and interior design, and gardening. In other words, that definition of "religion" encompasses everything which people teach to each other. And because it's so broad, it becomes meaning-free.
Precisely my point. My epistemological stance is that we can't really KNOW anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
quote:
Do scientists do things like pray or meditate in order to do science?
Having spent several-hour sessions at an instrument collecting readings, I must say the mindless repetition is akin to Zen Archery.
quote:
Yes, and for precisely the same reason: God.
Ok, I'll grant you the most famous cases are typically like this, but doesn't this prove my point about science not being infallible in practice? Also, surely there must be cases where it isn't God that causes the zealousness. It's times like these I wish I knew more about the history of science.
quote:
It's a real shame that people abuse his hypotheses so badly that he himself got disgusted.quote:
I'd appreciate it if you would explain your alternative interpretation instead of just saying mine is wrong.
quote:
Anyone who understands the process of science also understands that textbooks are only one of the first steps in teaching science. Nobody in their right mind "justifies" any scientific position only upon a textbook.
Right, SCIENTISTS understand that, but not the layman. If you ask the average person what color carbon atoms are and why, you'll probably hear "black, because that's how it was always depicted in the textbooks" (This one is courtesy of my educational methods professor)
[quote]In point of fact, despite Einstein's corrections to Newton "on a technical level," Newton's laws and theories are still useful today
Yeah, I definately agree. I'm not exactly sure where I was going with that bit. I think I was trying to create a sense of why believe in science "facts" can be believing in science dogma.
[quote]And you're a practical person who wants useful things, you say. Nobody in, for example, NASCAR gives a rat's ass that a stock car is 64 quadrillionths of an inch shorter at 200 MPH than at rest, because there's no practical way to measure that difference, or put it to use to win a race.
You raise an interesting point. Then again, you could have said the same thing about Boolean algebra before we invented computers.
G.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
