A Christian Science Monitor Article on OC

rapgood said:

I will support to the death this guy's right to be an idiot!

Click to expand...

All I could think, looking at that picture, was "What happens when he sneezes?" :lol:

As an Antitheist, I love these types of posts; the type where I can just sit back, and laugh at every single person who posts in defense of anything relating to religion, and science, in the same tagline. But seriously though, 'Christian Science', ha! that's a contradiction bigger than 'National Security Agency'. Religion is a dogmatic curse, and stain on mankind, built on the foundations of closed-minds, and bloodshed. Science is the freedom of our minds, built on a foundation of curiosity and open, free thought, without bounds or chains. Amusing article nonetheless, always amusing to see a Religious 'news' organization trying to come across as legit.

cjohnson44546 said:

You must not know what Christianity is, if you think that's Christian. .....

Click to expand...

I think most would agree that there are many groups and many individuals that wear the name and profess to be 'Christian' without following the God-Man.

But isn't all of this, religion talk, atheism bloviating, and talk of long gun carry all against the rules here? I digress.

DrakeZ07 said:

As an Antitheist, I love these types of posts; the type where I can just sit back, and laugh at every single person who posts in defense of anything relating to religion, and science, in the same tagline. But seriously though, 'Christian Science', ha! that's a contradiction bigger than 'National Security Agency'. Religion is a dogmatic curse, and stain on mankind, built on the foundations of closed-minds, and bloodshed. Science is the freedom of our minds, built on a foundation of curiosity and open, free thought, without bounds or chains. Amusing article nonetheless, always amusing to see a Religious 'news' organization trying to come across as legit.

Click to expand...

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but your confidence in those beliefs is every bit as faith-based as the most logic-blind religious zealot.

You have just as much objective proof as they do. You have enormous amounts of subjective proof that is perfectly convincing to you, just as they do. In the end, you rely on faith just as much as they do -- negative faith rather than positive, but still faith.

As for bloody history -- who was the number one sponsor of scientific research around the time Galileo was trying to prove his hypotheses? Who had the best scientific laboratories 75 years ago? I bet you won't like the answers.

Nightmare said:

Well said.

The demarcation boundary between science and non-science is falsifiability, after Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery. It's 800+ pages so proof from the semi-literate. 'Scientific Discovery' is the premise behind his masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies, particularly enemies, Plato, Hegel, Mark, socialists and tyrants.

Science and religion require nearly identical statements of faith. A mind that is large enough to hold one ought to be able to hold both. Sola Fide. One can't get it until one gets it.

Click to expand...

Tell me more.

Difdi said:

You're certainly entitled to your beliefs, but your confidence in those beliefs is every bit as faith-based as the most logic-blind religious zealot.

You have just as much objective proof as they do. You have enormous amounts of subjective proof that is perfectly convincing to you, just as they do. In the end, you rely on faith just as much as they do -- negative faith rather than positive, but still faith.

As for bloody history -- who was the number one sponsor of scientific research around the time Galileo was trying to prove his hypotheses? Who had the best scientific laboratories 75 years ago? I bet you won't like the answers.

Click to expand...

Can you clarify negative? Negative is a good thing when it comes to the philosophies including science.

Nightmare said:

There is no direct experience of science per se but it is acceptable to have faith in its unfalsifiability. There is no direct experience of religion and it should be acceptable to have faith in its unfalsifiability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#The_criterion_of_demarcation Look in the article for unfalsifiable.

For our onlookers, differentiate science from reality. The moon through a telescope is science that you have faith is a true representation of the thing. It is not the thing you see at night.

The cross is a faithful representation of the thing to the faithful.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Sounds like a very long-winded way of beating around several bushes to arrive at "this is an observation (something observed), that is a conclusion or evaluation about an observation."

(sigh) I think if more people could just distinguish between those two, I think the race would be a lot further along.

For example, Newton observes an apple falling from a tree. That is the observation. The conclusion "that masses attract one another" is just that--a conclusion.

Speaking more to religion, I observe certain ink marks on the page in a King James bible. That is what I observe--literally just ink dried on a piece of paper. Accepting the meaning of those ink marks is a whole different activity.

Citizen said:

Thanks.

Sounds like a very long-winded way of beating around several bushes to arrive at "this is an observation (something observed), that is a conclusion or evaluation about an observation."

(sigh) I think if more people could just distinguish between those two, I think the race would be a lot further along.

For example, Newton observes an apple falling from a tree. That is the observation. The conclusion "that masses attract one another" is just that--a conclusion.

Speaking more to religion, I observe certain ink marks on the page in a King James bible. That is what I observe--literally just ink dried on a piece of paper. Accepting the meaning of those ink marks is a whole different activity.

Click to expand...

Which raises an interesting question. How often are our conclusions to our observations formed because of reading or hearing someone else's conclusions leading us to the same or similar conclusions?

sudden valley gunner said:

Which raises an interesting question. How often are our conclusions to our observations formed because of reading or hearing someone else's conclusions leading us to the same or similar conclusions?

Click to expand...

SVG, depends whom is stating those conclusions!! isn't that why there is a rule and some push for cite(s) when member's push emotional hyperbole as a basis of fact to assure those reader's working on reaching some conclusion(s) is given something other than bovine subject matter to work with?

ipse

sudden valley gunner said:

Which raises an interesting question. How often are our conclusions to our observations formed because of reading or hearing someone else's conclusions leading us to the same or similar conclusions?

Click to expand...

Good question.

A perfect example arises from Nightmare's link to wiki about Sola Fide--the doctrine of salvation through faith alone. I had no idea what Sola Fide meant, so I asked him.

The wiki article explained.

But, it also said something astounding! It said that Man is incapable of lifting himself up, rising above both the harms he's committed and the impulse(s) to commit harms. Thus, Man needs God's grace to enter into spiritual perfection.

Whoa!!! Hang on just a second!

Just because a person doesn't know how to erase on himself the effects of the harms he's committed, or how to erase the impulse to commit more, absolutely does not mean such is impossible. At most it means he doesn't know how. Yeah, well, I don't know how to make a soufflé. Doesn't mean I can't find out, or evolve the methodology myself.

I'm deeply suspicious of that conclusion (and the hidden premise). Just because a fella doesn't know how doesn't mean it is undiscoverable.

So, to come full circle: watch out for the other fella's conclusions.

solus said:

SVG, depends whom is stating those conclusions!! isn't that why there is a rule and some push for cite(s) when member's push emotional hyperbole as a basis of fact to assure those reader's working on reaching some conclusion(s) is given something other than bovine subject matter to work with?

ipse

Click to expand...

Ah yes if it is coming from an individual or ideology we oppose we may reject those conclusions on prejudice alone, often the very reason we oppose the ideology may be because of learned conclusions from others.

Reject an ancient religion because of the bible, reject the bible because of your atheistic leaning professors, vice versa accept the bibles inked passages as truth because you were told they were and then find evidence to support your already held beliefs, reject any form of spiritual connection because being taught secular physical connection is the only connection we have...

It really presents some interesting study into human nature.

Citizen said:

Good question.

A perfect example arises from Nightmare's link to wiki about Sola Fide--the doctrine of salvation through faith alone. I had no idea what Sola Fide meant, so I asked him.

The wiki article explained.

But, it also said something astounding! It said that Man is incapable of lifting himself up, rising above both the harms he's committed and the impulse(s) to commit harms. Thus, Man needs God's grace to enter into spiritual perfection.

Whoa!!! Hang on just a second!

Just because a person doesn't know how to erase on himself the effects of the harms he's committed, or how to erase the impulse to commit more, absolutely does not mean such is impossible. At most it means he doesn't know how. Yeah, well, I don't know how to make a soufflé. Doesn't mean I can't find out, or evolve the methodology myself.

I'm deeply suspicious of that conclusion (and the hidden premise). Just because a fella doesn't know how doesn't mean it is undiscoverable.

So, to come full circle: watch out for the other fella's conclusions.

Click to expand...

Thats a good point.

We at one time could not fly tubes of metal weighing many tons through the atsmophere carrying people safely from one spot on a globe to another. This would have been an absolute impossiblity 200 years ago. All the faiths (religious and scientific) would have evidence to back the claim up. They were right in a way, it was impossible, until we did it. Who knows what physical, mental or spiritual impossibilities will be common occurrence given the human race enough time.

sudden valley gunner said:

Which raises an interesting question. How often are our conclusions to our observations formed because of reading or hearing someone else's conclusions leading us to the same or similar conclusions?

Click to expand...

<chuckle>

I just thought of another. This oughta get a few knickers in a twist.

From where do I get the power to coerce another peaceful equal by voting?

Oh, yes. The Founders. The Founders told me--via their writings (since they are long dead)--that I have a "right" to vote. And, my high school history teacher.

Yeah? So? Who the hell are they? I'm supposed to just accept their conclusions and explanations just because? When I meet God at Judgment Day, will I really be able to say I inflicted government on other peaceful equals because the Founders told me I could? What sort of personal responsibility is that? Its a diversion, that's what it is. I would be shifting responsibility for the conclusions, and acceptance of the justifications and rationalizations to someone else. Worse, to people who are long dead. And, since I can't claim the Founders actually told me I could inflict government on other peaceful equals (because they're long dead) its an even worse diversion: I'd be shifting responsibility to pieces of paper with dried ink on them or pixels temporarily illuminated on my computer screen.

I can see it now. "Yes, Lord. The pixels told me I could inflict government on all the other very real human beings in my state and country. Its the pixels' fault. Not mine."

Same for accepting the conclusion, "government is a necessary evil" and its unstated premises.

Here is a thought: Why is it that a thread about an article about OCing turns into a debate on either religion or the legitimacy of the state? Simply because the article appears in a publication named "The Christian Science Monitor" and because some folks seem to have only a hammer in their tool box?

Heaven forbid we actually discuss the article itself.

Citizen said:

Hits bird flutter it seems.

Some ladies doth protest too much.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Hahahahaha......lol....

Click to expand...

So original...and so easily entertained it seems.

Give it a rest guys.

Is it the heat or something in the water? I take the afternoon to attend to other business and come back to threads that go totally off topic before the first 10 posts.

The OP asked for thoughts on the content of the article. This in no way opened the door for philosophical debates about religion vs science, believers/non believers etc, et al..

We will leave the discussion/debate regarding religion vs science to forums dedicated to that purpose.

Here the result is to divide us (harm us) when we should be seeking unity and singularity of purpose based upon the tenants, goals, and direction of the site owners and administration.

This is an Open Carry forum, the article (OP) was about open carry, virtually all else posted here has been off topic.

For the 2nd time in one night, the lock has been earned!