All Babies Go to Heaven

[kj]

>>Okay. So you're saying that it's redundant to state that something you say is an opinion. It is implicit.

No, not really. I'm saying in this case, it is not necessary for him to state it was his belief. It obviously is. Yoregano, believes what he said is a fact. Can magus tell him that he has to state it so it is congruent with what magus thinks (it's not a fact)? Why does magus get to decide what's fact and what's not? I can answer that one: He doesn't.

>>>"Unanimous opinion"? You gotta be kiddin' me! Facts are facts, regardless of whether people "unanimously" agree. E=mc^2 is not a fact because Einstein said it was. It just is.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. I mean, you know for sure what things are facts and what are not? Again, who appointed you to run around here making sure no one represents an opinion as fact? I don't see a lot of people on this forum dealing in undebatable facts. It's nearly all opinion. kj.

[MacMagus]

> > WTF is a "particularly unanimous" anything? This is the kind of thinking that I reflexively
> > ridicule. Count yourself lucky that I've got a date in a few minutes...
>
> Everyone agrees it is a fact.

You qualified "unanimous" with the word "particularly."

It's not unanimous if it's only "sort of kind of maybe close to unanimous."


> Why does magus get to decide what's fact and what's not?

Until this point, I have not been the arbiter of "facts." You and Lux Interior have discussed "facts." But thanks for nominating me. I'll go ahead and take on the role of arbiter for a moment.

When I use the word "fact," I try to stick to the definition that a fact is something that can be proved true or false and which has by at least a preponderance of evidence been demonstrated true.

With my arbiter cap on, I'm telling you that you've been using the word "fact" incorrectly. To you, a fact is anything that appears truthful to a person or persons, regardless of the substance of the claim. Those statements of yours are among the things that I call "allegations." Not facts.

What I have continually challenged throughout this thread have not been -- by my definition -- facts. They have been allegations. And since I'm the arbiter what I say goes.

Get your facts straight.

I now doff my arbiter cap.


> Central to your arguments is the belief that everything that matters must be amenable to
> evaluation using the scientific method. It's circular.

No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.

For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.

Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.


> It's circular.

Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...

Rather than calling it circular, I suggest that we come to a mutual agreement that the scientific method is metaphorically cone-shaped with the small-tip at an infinite point in the future. A scientific inquiry often starts with a broad hypothesis and continually refines it to ever more narrow hypotheses. Refining the model and testing it -- asking questions -- should never end.


> According to science, science is the only source of truth.

WTF are you talking about?

Scientists say that they pursue truth. I've never heard of any scientist claiming that he had a lock on it.

Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.


> I don't see a lot of people on this forum dealing in undebatable facts.

What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."

Is that the sort of conversation you prefer? With everyone just repeating the same crap endlessly, never being challenged and never learning anything new?

[kj]

>>>To you, a fact is anything that appears truthful to a person or persons, regardless of the substance of the claim. Those statements of yours are things that I call "allegations." Not facts.

I don't define a fact like that, at all. What statements of fact did I make? I'm pretty sure I've been arguing they are implicitly opinions, not facts. But I didn't state them.

>>>No, central to my arguments is the premise that allegations about how the universe is run ought to be reasonable. As opposed to irrational.
For this kind of analytic, the scientific method is but one approach.
Logic, mathematics and other ways of making observable and repeatable proofs are also acceptable to me.

How do you define reasonable? Irrational? Does the scientific method always involve logic? Does it always include mathematics (qualitative counts!)? It's all science.

>>Do you NEED it to be shaped like something? Okay...

That's cute, but I'm aware how it works.

>>Find me the science textbook that says that science is the only source of truth. Someone has got to trade sharp words with that ignorant author.

Ok, you got me there. What other ways does a scientist believe there are to arrive at the truth? For that matter, what other ways do you believe there are?

>>>What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."

Exactly my point, which is why when someone makes a statement on this forum, they don't necessarily have to identify it as their opinion. As you just stated, almost nothing discussed here is a fact (pretty much all opinion). kj.

[MacMagus]

> It's all science.

Well, if you need an example, statements like that are irrational.


> I'm aware how it works.

All evidence to the contrary.


> What other ways does a scientist believe there are to arrive at the truth?

Ask a scientist.


> For that matter, what other ways do you believe there are?

If you read my posts carefully, you might notice a couple. There are a few more methods that I can think of and probably several more that wouldn't immediately occur to me. But since they all involve rational and intelligent inquiry, you'd probably just group them under your unique definition of "science."


> As you just stated, almost nothing discussed here is a fact (pretty much all opinion).

I never said any such thing.

Many facts make good subjects for debate. You brought up the idea of undebatable facts and I gave an example of what a discussion might look like based on such facts.

[RgrF]

<>

[kj]

>>Well, if you need an example, statements like that are irrational.

No it isn't.

>>All evidence to the contrary.

There you go being the guardian of all knowledge again. I've got several publications in refereed journals and have taught experimental design/methods, etc. etc. Have you spent any time reading the literature on the philosophy of science or epistemology? Science is not as well defined and monolithic as you think.

>>If you read my posts carefully, you might notice a couple. There are a few more methods that I can think of and probably several more that wouldn't immediately occur to me. But since they all involve rational and intelligent inquiry, you'd probably just group them under your unique definition of "science."

Four sentences where a few words would have done the trick. My notion of science is hardly unique.

>>Many facts make good subjects for debate. You brought up the idea of undebatable facts and I gave an example of what a discussion might look like based on such facts.

You can play games all you want, but most of what occurs in this forum is opinion. The day you concede even the smallest of points is the day I crap my pants. Holy cow. kj.

[MacMagus]

> Have you spent any time reading the literature on the philosophy of science or epistemology?

1. Is that really necessary in order to understand the distinction between a) contradictory rules dictated by people who claim to get their information from a book of conflicting stories written by dead people inspired by an invisible wishing zombie who lives in the sky and b) rules derived from observation of the workings of the world and the universe?

and

2. Yes. And I think that you've made it clear that you haven't.


> My notion of science is hardly unique.

You got me there.

That doesn't make you right.


> You can play games all you want, but most of what occurs in this forum is opinion.

I never said otherwise.

You seem to like pretending that I said certain things so that you can argue with your imagination instead of taking the time and effort to read and understand what I've written.

Is that how you read everything? You just imagine that a book says what you want it to say instead of taking the time and effort to try and understand it?

That would explain a lot.

[kj]

>>>1. Is that really necessary in order to understand the distinction between a) contradictory rules dictated by people who claim to get their information from a book of conflicting stories written by dead people inspired by an invisible wishing zombie who lives in the sky and b) rules derived from observation of the workings of the world and the universe?

Maybe not, but we were discussing whether I know anything about science, if you look back. And if "a)" is your description of christianity, you demonstrated you have almost no knowledge how christianity works.

>>>2. Yes. And I think that you've made it clear that you haven't.

Odd that you would think you know better than I, what I've read. What have I said that could possibly make it that clear (we've hardly discussed philosophy of science)? I think you need to be more explicit if you want me to take you seriously.

>>>You seem to like pretending that I said certain things so that you can argue with your imagination instead of taking the time and effort to read and understand what I've written.

You seem to do the same. To start with, I said this:

"I don't see a lot of people on this forum dealing in undebatable facts. It's nearly all opinion."

You come up with this:

>>>What a great conversation that would be: "Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!! LUX INTERIOR!! 2+2=4!! What? You agree? Okay... Hey!!..."

Now tell me where I said I wanted people to deal in undebatable facts, as you imply. My point was that yoregano doesn't have to identify his opinions as such, because nearly everything on this forum is opinion. How does your response have anything to do with my point?

You said in an earlier post that you wanted yoregano:

>>To be nice.

I think if you want people to be nice, you might get better results if you were nice yourself. kj.

[MacMagus]

> Odd that you would think you know better than I, what I've read.

If you have read anything at all in those fields, you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of it. Perhaps you skim?


> Now tell me where I said I wanted people to deal in undebatable facts

Once again, you have premised your statements upon something you imagined that I wrote. I did not say that you wanted that.

It's odd that you depend so much upon an imaginary discussion when the text is right here in front of you.


> we were discussing whether I know anything about science, if you look back.

Actually, we weren't discussing that. You keep trying to derail the discussion into the outpourings of your persecution complex, but our topic is not you and the scope of your ego.

This thread is about the rules for getting into heaven, starting with the Catholic Church's decision that unbaptized babies might now get into heaven. There's a lot of room to roam under this subject, but you've taken it too far. You may enjoy that you've changed the direction of the conversation, but it's bad netiquette to hijack a thread to stroke yourself in public.

If you'd like to go on talking about what you imagine people are saying about you and your particular view of "science" then you should start a new topic for that.


> I think if you want people to be nice, you might get better results if you were nice yourself. kj.

I'll be nice to you right now:

This thread has moved far from the original topic. I don't think that kj is taking the discussion in a productive direction.

I won't respond to further posts in this thread unless they relate to the original topic. I suggest that everyone else do the same.

[kj]

>>If you have read anything at all in those fields, you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of it. Perhaps you skim?

I guess I'm just supposed to take your word for it, then?

>>Once again, you have premised your statements upon something you imagined that I wrote. I did not say that you wanted that.

It was implied. If it wasn't, your reply made no sense at all.

>>>Actually, we weren't discussing that. You keep trying to derail the discussion into the outpourings of your persecution complex, but our topic is not you and the scope of your ego.

Actually, we were, unless you are going to lie. I am not being persecuted, and no one else I know (at least in the U.S.) is. I started out discussing the topic in a very reasonable manner, as was everyone until you started making threats and insulting people.

>>>This thread is about the rules for getting into heaven, starting with the Catholic Church's decision that unbaptized babies might now get into heaven. There's a lot of room to roam under this subject, but you've taken it too far. You may enjoy that you've changed the direction of the conversation, but it's bad netiquette to hijack a thread to stroke yourself in public.

Hey, it takes two to tango, to coin a phrase. If you could concede even the smallest point, ever, there wouldn't be such an issue. As long as you refuse to take responsibility for threats and insults, your going to continue to point it out.

>>If you'd like to go on talking about what you imagine people are saying about you and your particular view of "science" then you should start a new topic for that.

Now you're going to maintain you didn't say that? Do you really think people are that stupid? Do you think I'm going to let you insult me and say nothing to rebuke you? A lot of the time, I might, but not this time. kj.