Blogs

WolfinWolfsClothing's picture

The 'Theory' of Heliocentricity II: Dogmatic Boogaloo

Louis,

You bring up many good points my friend; however, I do not think we are seeing eye to eye. I believe everyone has a belief in something whether the majority believe a word means one thing others may view it differently (for example the word "God"). I am very familiar with Joseph Smith, Scientology, and Intelligent Design. I know there are many different views on intelligent design? Have you read the book by Rael "Intelligent Design"? It is available free from his website www.rael.org (for the book) and his own news website www.raelnews.org. Also, another good website on Scientology (I am not sure were you got your info), but the website I use is www.xenu.net. I have many links concerning Mormonism but I recommend the "God Makers" book or The Life of Joseph Smith by Fawn Brodie Eye-wink On the subject of Religion and Science you say that religion is dogmatic (and yes I believe some are), but you claim that science is not. I believe differently; and I believe science is very dogmatic in numerous ways. I do believe though that science and religion are on the same playing field and both can be used to show that they are both real. I believe that science will continue to prove the Bible to be true and that it will prove what is written is right, as it has in many instances. Yes, there are people will deny this and say my claims are untrue or ridiculous; however, some of the greatest scientists were once laughed at too. Who is right and who is wrong??? Well I guess that is an answer we will all find out when our time comes. However, in the mean time we can only argue and discuss are points of view (typing away) in a blog room somewhere in Internet space, hoping to convince on another that the other is right. Knowing deep down inside that the chances of doing so are like a camel passing through the eye of a needle. When I was referring to Nineveh I was talking about Archaeologists (who are scientists) that denied its existence and later had to rebuke their statements. I will read the books you recommend, and yes I am very familiar with Richard Dawkins. However, I will buy the books and read them because I try to understand what others believe and keep an open mind (unlike many of my fellow Christians, in which is something I am trying to help them with). The books I recommend for further reading is Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology by

WolfinWolfsClothing's picture

The 'Theory' of Heliocentricity

--- christopher nesbitt wrote:

Louis,

There are many flaws in science as nothing in science can be proved and there are many theories. Even gravity is not a fact but a theory and atomic theory as many thing in science that people believe to be true can not be proved, just like many things in Christians beliefs. Actually science and religion are very much alike as both are based upon a theory or belief. When science like religion has
> its surface pulled back there are many flaws (as sometimes they are called). As a Christian I love science because I find that many times scientist accidentally end up proving the Bible to be true. For example, in the science or archaeologist world it was believed that in Genesis 10:11 when a city of Nineveh was mentioned that we did not know of such a place and many skeptics of the Christian belief used this as one of many points to show the Bible is inaccurate or false. However, Nineveh was discovered and people had to swallow there statements and find new accusations to make. I feel that no matter how many things in the Bible are proven, people will find new arguments and pick up another type of rock to through and the castle. As Sandy said I believe Jesus could come back tomorrow and as the Christians believe in the Rapture of the Church and the Bible talks about this and how it is going to happen as it has been written in there for hundreds of years, but when it happens people will still say aliens must have done it, or the government had something to do with it, or many other explanations. However, if they looked in Revelation in the Bible it is written in there and has been for a very long time. I hope I didn't offend anyone and enjoy engaging in such discussions with everyone, were there is a mutual respect for everyone beliefs. Thank you.

Dissident1's picture

Calm down and stop stressing

Getting along with others can be very difficult.

On any subject that an opinion is held, those who hold different opinions cannot fathom why anyone would even begin to think differently. There is an essential feeling of wrongness to opposing viewpoints.

Moreover, even people who hold identical views can often find themselves in a position where they are simply tired of being around each other. They grow tired of other voices impeding on their thoughts.

Yet, humans have always lived in groups, from prehistoric times onward. Thus it seems rather disconcerting for us to not want other people around.

Samuel's picture

The Allegory of Plato's Cave

The Allegory of Plato's Cave
Category: Religion and Philosophy

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog #141, The Allegory of Plato's Cave

For those of you who do not know the Allegory of Plato's cave, let me just explain it shortly.

Imagine the human race is chained to a wall of a cave, they can not move even their necks. Behind then is a tunnel leading out of the cave into the bright world. Behind them also is a fire pit. Puppets dance in front of the fire, casting shadows on the walls of the cave for the prisoners to see. The humans can talk to each other and were chained there their entire lives.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity

Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL11AFPI

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 139, Logical Fallacy Lesson 11, Argument From Personal Incredulity

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
LFL10: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam
And Now LFL11: Argument From Personal Incredulity

First off, I am considering this as the third part of my ninth logical fallacy lesson. So to fully understand this area of fallacy I'd read my 137th blog, and then my 138th blog, before you read this blog (my 139th). So go read Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof, followed by Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, then this blog, Logical Fallacy Lesson 11: Argument From Personal Incredulity.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 10: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Logical Fallacy Lesson 10: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL10AAI

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 138, Logical Fallacy Lesson 10, Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
And Now LFL10: Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam

My original source of logical fallacy knowledge, Glen Whitman's "Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate" essay, misspelled Ignorantiam as Ignorantium - so I consequently misspelled it as well in my last blog. Sorry. It's with an "a" not a "u." Well, according to most internet sources. I got 922 google hits for "Ignorantium" and 128,000 for "Ignorantiam," so I'm going to go ahead and bet on "Ignorantiam" as the correct spelling - although it really doesn't matter.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL9SBP

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 137, Logical Fallacy Lesson 9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
LFL8: Appeal to Emotion
And Now LFL9: Shifting the Burden of Proof

A logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning. Stupidity - to put it bluntly. As a matter of fact - how frequently you make logical fallacies pretty much is what determines how stupid you are. If you a logical fallacy prone I will start referring to you, and correctly, as an idiot.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Appeal to Emotion

Logical Fallacy Lesson 8: Appeal to Emotion
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL8ATE

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 133, Logical Fallacy Lesson 8, Appeal to Emotion

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
LFL7: Appeal to Faith
And Now LFL8: Appeal to Emotion

A logical fallacy is an error in logical reasoning. Stupidity - if you will. It's more than just being mistaken. Its applying arguments and facts wrong. Like... Tanning on a beach to relieve sunburn or crossing your fingers to fix a broken leg. It's just... Stupidity. Unfortunately human beings love this stuff and not only fall for it, but try to pass it off as valid reasoning. The embodiment of this is religion, of course, but today I'll be looking specifically at a certain kind of fallacy, not all fallacies. This blog is on the specific logical error known as Appeal to Emotion.

Samuel's picture

Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith

Logical Fallacy Lesson 7: Appeal to Faith
Category: Religion and Philosophy

LFL7ATF

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 132, Logical Fallacy Lesson 7, Appeal to Faith

LFL1: Argumentum Ad Hominem
LFL2: Red Herring
LFL3: Non Sequitor
LFL4: Bald Assertion
LFL5: Ad Hoc
LFL6: Argumentum Ad Nauseum
And Now LFL7: Appeal to Faith

Appeal to faith is probably the bottom of the bottom of logical error. Even worse than bald assertion, I'd say. Appeal to faith is trying to use belief, alone, to try and prove something. Here is the common documentation of the fallacy:

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

Samuel's picture

Gender Controversy

Gender Controversy
Category: Romance and Relationships

Samuel Thomas Poling, Blog 131, Gender Controversy

This blog is the speech I'll be giving in my Interpersonal Communications class this Thursday. Tommarow. I'll be part of a team of four members, all talking about Conflict Resolution. My speech will be last, and once they know how synical I am, they're going to be stateing a disclaimer before I speak. I get my very own disclaimer! Joy.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Samuel Thomas Poling

Wednesday, December 06, 2006 A.D.

Interpersonal communications

Syndicate content