you just gave them carte Blanche
Tu Stultus Es
Thanks, now this is going to turn into another 'I hate religion' thread. Like we don't have enough of them floating around.Turquoise wrote:
In all honesty, Hunter does have a point in that criticizing Christianity for its dogma is accepted, whereas doing the same to Islam seems to be frowned upon by political correctness.
Personally, I think any school that pushes religion on students to the degree that Bob Jones or many madrassas do only serves to hinder free thinking and learning.
Knowledge is generally the antithesis to religion, because the more you know and understand about the world, the more you recognize religion as the bullshit it really is.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-12-19 17:17:05)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, it does simplify the debate on religious schools. You can already assume that any school that preaches a fundamentalist interpretation of any religion is going to be shit.
There are plenty of reputable schools with ties to religion, but most of them aren't fundamentalist, and none of them tend to focus on indoctrination.
There are plenty of reputable schools with ties to religion, but most of them aren't fundamentalist, and none of them tend to focus on indoctrination.
The three main religions have fundamental medieval cores which were bizarre and intolerant back then - maybe that was their appeal.
Any school teaching prehistoric fundamentalism now should be closed.
Any school teaching prehistoric fundamentalism now should be closed.
Fuck Israel
lol yeah you're TOTALLY right the bridge between epistemology and ontology is completely broken by theologyTurquoise wrote:
Knowledge is generally the antithesis to religion, because the more you know and understand about the world, the more you recognize religion as the bullshit it really is.
no wait, you're wrong
i love it when you make 'big' profound statements with little-to-know clue what you're talking about
rofl "knowledge is the antithesis to religion"
perhaps you mean positivist empiricism is the antithesis to religion
but knowledge? no
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I mean this in the nicest way possible, Uzique. Go fuck yourself.
stop saying big things when you clearly havent read the right departure-lounge book on the matter yet
human 'knowledge', in the broad epistemological sense, is made up of a lot of valuable information and experience. religion and theology do fit into that, both concretely and metaphysically. there is a lot of instruction, ethical philosophy, and solid information contained within theological study. religion is not the irredudicible opposite of knowledge. it's as simple as that. what you are trying to say is that religious schools and faith-based institutions overlook the long tradition of rationalist/empiricist discourses that have developed since the enlightenment and increasing scientific development of society. but to claim in any way that positivist scientific knowledge is the full extent of 'human knowledge' is absolutely retarded.
human 'knowledge', in the broad epistemological sense, is made up of a lot of valuable information and experience. religion and theology do fit into that, both concretely and metaphysically. there is a lot of instruction, ethical philosophy, and solid information contained within theological study. religion is not the irredudicible opposite of knowledge. it's as simple as that. what you are trying to say is that religious schools and faith-based institutions overlook the long tradition of rationalist/empiricist discourses that have developed since the enlightenment and increasing scientific development of society. but to claim in any way that positivist scientific knowledge is the full extent of 'human knowledge' is absolutely retarded.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I'm really not interested in derailing this further with an argument over semantics, so I will simply say the following....Uzique wrote:
stop saying big things when you clearly havent read the right departure-lounge book on the matter yet
human 'knowledge', in the broad epistemological sense, is made up of a lot of valuable information and experience. religion and theology do fit into that, both concretely and metaphysically. there is a lot of instruction, ethical philosophy, and solid information contained within theological study. religion is not the irredudicible opposite of knowledge. it's as simple as that. what you are trying to say is that religious schools and faith-based institutions overlook the long tradition of rationalist/empiricist discourses that have developed since the enlightenment and increasing scientific development of society. but to claim in any way that positivist scientific knowledge is the full extent of 'human knowledge' is absolutely retarded.
What is there to know outside of what can be recorded and proven? What various societies postulate about the unknowable (aka - the afterlife and the divine) is only worthwhile from historical and sociological perspectives. Understanding how religions affect culture and human behavior in general is important from those respects, but the simple truth of the matter is that religion is nothing more than a wild guess about something you couldn't possibly have any evidence for.
Therefore, unless you are specifically studying religion in order to understand a culture or obtain a theological degree, I don't see much point in the study overall. And what I specifically was criticizing in my earlier post was indoctrination put forth by certain fundamentalist schools.
it is NOT an argument of semantics. how ridiculous. if you're going to make sweeping statements about 'big' concepts like knowledge- be familiar with what constitutes it, the philosophy of it, and the actual subject MATTER of 'knowledge'. don't just make some huge, pretentious-sounding statement like "religion is the antithesis of knowledge" when you clearly didn't think through the statement; to come back at me with a "this is a matter of semantics" is so reductive and stupid. we're both discussing knowledge, simple as.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-19 21:21:59)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Oh really? So you're suggesting that a witch doctor is equally as valid as a medical doctor?Uzique wrote:
it is NOT an argument of semantics. how ridiculous. if you're going to make sweeping statements about 'big' concepts like knowledge- be familiar with what constitutes it, the philosophy of it, and the actual subject MATTER of 'knowledge'. don't just make some huge, pretentious-sounding statement like "religion is the antithesis of knowledge" when you clearly didn't think through the statement; to come back at me with a "this is a matter of semantics" is so reductive and stupid. we're both discussing knowledge, simple as.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
Depends on the results now doesn't it?Turquoise wrote:
Oh really? So you're suggesting that a witch doctor is equally as valid as a medical doctor?Uzique wrote:
it is NOT an argument of semantics. how ridiculous. if you're going to make sweeping statements about 'big' concepts like knowledge- be familiar with what constitutes it, the philosophy of it, and the actual subject MATTER of 'knowledge'. don't just make some huge, pretentious-sounding statement like "religion is the antithesis of knowledge" when you clearly didn't think through the statement; to come back at me with a "this is a matter of semantics" is so reductive and stupid. we're both discussing knowledge, simple as.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i'm not talking about professional or formal qualifications...Turquoise wrote:
Oh really? So you're suggesting that a witch doctor is equally as valid as a medical doctor?Uzique wrote:
it is NOT an argument of semantics. how ridiculous. if you're going to make sweeping statements about 'big' concepts like knowledge- be familiar with what constitutes it, the philosophy of it, and the actual subject MATTER of 'knowledge'. don't just make some huge, pretentious-sounding statement like "religion is the antithesis of knowledge" when you clearly didn't think through the statement; to come back at me with a "this is a matter of semantics" is so reductive and stupid. we're both discussing knowledge, simple as.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
nor have i ever said that a witch doctor has any 'valid' theological education.
all i am saying is that theology can constitute 'knowledge', in the epistemological sense.
you're using reductio ad absurdum retorts already so i know you're out of ideas. just stop.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I really hope you're being sarcastic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on the results now doesn't it?Turquoise wrote:
Oh really? So you're suggesting that a witch doctor is equally as valid as a medical doctor?Uzique wrote:
it is NOT an argument of semantics. how ridiculous. if you're going to make sweeping statements about 'big' concepts like knowledge- be familiar with what constitutes it, the philosophy of it, and the actual subject MATTER of 'knowledge'. don't just make some huge, pretentious-sounding statement like "religion is the antithesis of knowledge" when you clearly didn't think through the statement; to come back at me with a "this is a matter of semantics" is so reductive and stupid. we're both discussing knowledge, simple as.
everything is just a 'wild guess'. it doesn't matter whether you take a logical-positivist approach or a phenomenological approach. they're all ultimately stabs in the dark-- differently structured and based in different analytic/evaluative systems, sure, but there is no 'right' or 'wrong'-- especially when feeding into the epistemological field of 'knowledge'. what even constitutes the external reality outside of our own individual consciousness is entirely debatable- rationalist, empiricist thought doesn't have a certifiably more 'successful' method towards ontology than religion does. you're asserting your own subjectivities over the pure objective truth of the matter (which is, as such, hard to define).
you're criticizing indoctrination, which is fair on an ethical-philosophy point. but to set up a dichotomy between religion and knowledge is a flaw in your argument. simple as that, really.
What is reductionist about explaining that the scientific method is far better than simply believing in tradition?Uzique wrote:
i'm not talking about professional or formal qualifications...
nor have i ever said that a witch doctor has any 'valid' theological education.
all i am saying is that theology can constitute 'knowledge', in the epistemological sense.
you're using reductio ad absurdum retorts already so i know you're out of ideas. just stop.
Not at all. Making wide sweeping statements like a doctor is always better than a medicine man is just plain wrong. Half of the healing process is mental.Turquoise wrote:
I really hope you're being sarcastic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on the results now doesn't it?
Besides, modern medicine has borrowed quite heavily from 'witch doctors' that have better local knowledge of how to treat diseases than they could ever possess. They come in, usurp that local knowledge, try to figure out why it works, and then move on. They do very, very little original work because it would mean searching for a needle in a haystack every time something new came up. Most of the cancer research that's been done in labs is nothing more than chasing leads on what worked locally somewhere else in the world and then breaking down the chemical compounds in a lab setting.
I'm off topic now anyway. Point is, your sweeping general statements on a subject like this are just plain fucking wrong. Millions of people get through the day because they have their religion to fall back on. It gives them hope. It sure as shit isn't your right to take that away from them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
And where did I say that I wanted to take their right to believe in whatever they want to away?JohnG@lt wrote:
Not at all. Making wide sweeping statements like a doctor is always better than a medicine man is just plain wrong. Half of the healing process is mental.Turquoise wrote:
I really hope you're being sarcastic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on the results now doesn't it?
Besides, modern medicine has borrowed quite heavily from 'witch doctors' that have better local knowledge of how to treat diseases than they could ever possess. They come in, usurp that local knowledge, try to figure out why it works, and then move on. They do very, very little original work because it would mean searching for a needle in a haystack every time something new came up. Most of the cancer research that's been done in labs is nothing more than chasing leads on what worked locally somewhere else in the world and then breaking down the chemical compounds in a lab setting.
I'm off topic now anyway. Point is, your sweeping general statements on a subject like this are just plain fucking wrong. Millions of people get through the day because they have their religion to fall back on. It gives them hope. It sure as shit isn't your right to take that away from them.
Look, if you want to continue this, just PM me, because I agree that this thread is way off topic.
you didn't say that. you said "religion is the antithesis to knowledge"Turquoise wrote:
What is reductionist about explaining that the scientific method is far better than simply believing in tradition?Uzique wrote:
i'm not talking about professional or formal qualifications...
nor have i ever said that a witch doctor has any 'valid' theological education.
all i am saying is that theology can constitute 'knowledge', in the epistemological sense.
you're using reductio ad absurdum retorts already so i know you're out of ideas. just stop.
'knowledge' can't be qualified and compared like that. the scientific method is no better than tradition when it comes to purely enriching knowledge.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Alright, maybe I should have said, religion will often inhibit critical thinking.Uzique wrote:
you didn't say that. you said "religion is the antithesis to knowledge"Turquoise wrote:
What is reductionist about explaining that the scientific method is far better than simply believing in tradition?Uzique wrote:
i'm not talking about professional or formal qualifications...
nor have i ever said that a witch doctor has any 'valid' theological education.
all i am saying is that theology can constitute 'knowledge', in the epistemological sense.
you're using reductio ad absurdum retorts already so i know you're out of ideas. just stop.
'knowledge' can't be qualified and compared like that. the scientific method is no better than tradition when it comes to purely enriching knowledge.
you mad cuz he made you look stupid? boo hoo. dont get pissed at him just because you sit on the fence and have the sack size of a field mouse.Turquoise wrote:
I mean this in the nicest way possible, Uzique. Go fuck yourself.
qftJohnG@lt wrote:
Not at all. Making wide sweeping statements like a doctor is always better than a medicine man is just plain wrong. Half of the healing process is mental.Turquoise wrote:
I really hope you're being sarcastic.JohnG@lt wrote:
Depends on the results now doesn't it?
Besides, modern medicine has borrowed quite heavily from 'witch doctors' that have better local knowledge of how to treat diseases than they could ever possess. They come in, usurp that local knowledge, try to figure out why it works, and then move on. They do very, very little original work because it would mean searching for a needle in a haystack every time something new came up. Most of the cancer research that's been done in labs is nothing more than chasing leads on what worked locally somewhere else in the world and then breaking down the chemical compounds in a lab setting.
I'm off topic now anyway. Point is, your sweeping general statements on a subject like this are just plain fucking wrong. Millions of people get through the day because they have their religion to fall back on. It gives them hope. It sure as shit isn't your right to take that away from them.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You've said it repeatedly. You want religion eradicated and everyone to think just like you. Hell, you even mentioned brainwashing and the OP is about universities that adults attend. What is brainwashing anyway? Isn't it the parents job to pass along information that they deem important for the survival of their children? Why would religion be disqualified from this? Perhaps one of the parents had a really hard time at one point in their life and they felt like their belief saved their life. Wouldn't that be a valid bit of knowledge to pass on?Turquoise wrote:
And where did I say that I wanted to take their right to believe in whatever they want to away?
Look, if you want to continue this, just PM me, because I agree that this thread is way off topic.
But if you're talking about the kids that go from home school directly to a Bob Jones with zero public school interaction along the way, then yeah, that's a problem, but it's also a one in a million thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
As far as most Christian churches go, religion completely inhibit critical thinking. The dogmas are not to be questioned. The pope is infallible...Turquoise wrote:
Alright, maybe I should have said, religion will often inhibit critical thinking.
Religion may not be the antithesis of knowledge, but they sure do oppose a good portion of it.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
There is so much irony in this post.11 Bravo wrote:
you mad cuz he made you look stupid? boo hoo. dont get pissed at him just because you sit on the fence and have the sack size of a field mouse.Turquoise wrote:
I mean this in the nicest way possible, Uzique. Go fuck yourself.
John, I'm not going to bother responding to you anymore on this. Read Eveira's post and move on. He's basically summarized my stance on this.JohnG@lt wrote:
You've said it repeatedly. You want religion eradicated and everyone to think just like you. Hell, you even mentioned brainwashing and the OP is about universities that adults attend. What is brainwashing anyway? Isn't it the parents job to pass along information that they deem important for the survival of their children? Why would religion be disqualified from this? Perhaps one of the parents had a really hard time at one point in their life and they felt like their belief saved their life. Wouldn't that be a valid bit of knowledge to pass on?Turquoise wrote:
And where did I say that I wanted to take their right to believe in whatever they want to away?
Look, if you want to continue this, just PM me, because I agree that this thread is way off topic.
But if you're talking about the kids that go from home school directly to a Bob Jones with zero public school interaction along the way, then yeah, that's a problem, but it's also a one in a million thing.
there is so much spineless cunt in your responseTurquoise wrote:
There is so much irony in this post.11 Bravo wrote:
you mad cuz he made you look stupid? boo hoo. dont get pissed at him just because you sit on the fence and have the sack size of a field mouse.Turquoise wrote:
I mean this in the nicest way possible, Uzique. Go fuck yourself.