An open letter to religious people

[Guest]

Quoting Haunted from 17:20, 4th Aug 2008

If all christians were something benign and harmless like the Church of England, and the state had no church, and the bishops were expelled from the house of lords, and when judges don't make insane decisions positively discriminating in favour of the mystics (the sikh girl is now the only girl at her school exempt from the jewellery rule), and when religious organisations start paying tax like every other organisation (except the charitible ones, and no, one collection plate a week is not enough to be considered a charitable organisation), then there wouldn't be a problem.

I can't see that Christian activities are in anyway threatening to non-Christians or detrimental to society.

I hardly see why a girl wearing jewelery for religious reasons would bother any non-religious people (as desperate as I was to wear bracelets to school lol)

I don't have a problem with them not paying organisational tax because lets face it the bishops aren't rolling in money in any obscene way, and they do support communities significantly.

I do understand that some countries use God as an excuse for many policies but if they need their mystical being to help them decide right from wrong - let them have it. There always tends to be an ethical reason to back up their religious decision anyway. If their god didn't exist the debate would be just as significant.

[Haunted]

Quoting from 17:43, 4th Aug 2008
I can't see that Christian activities are in anyway threatening to non-Christians or detrimental to society.

I'll pick the easy ones. Protesting at funerals, picketing abortion clinics, beating up homosexuals. Now, you may well not call such things christian activities but some do and they use the same things you use for justifying deeds (book, faith, funny hat wearing man).

I hardly see why a girl wearing jewelery for religious reasons would bother any non-religious people (as desperate as I was to wear bracelets to school lol)

It's not the bracelet that offends me, it's that the state has said it's ok to break the rules for religious reasons. The school had a no jewellery rule, no bracelets no crucifixes no darwin fish rings, nothing. This is about equality for all, are you argueing against this?

I don't have a problem with them not paying organisational tax because lets face it the bishops aren't rolling in money in any obscene way, and they do support communities significantly.

Would you have a problem with football clubs being tax exempt? Afterall their youth programs are really valuable to some communities. Bishops shouldn't need to be rolling in money anyway. I have no problem with the religious organisations that are geniunely all about charity being tax exempt.

I do understand that some countries use God as an excuse for many policies but if they need their mystical being to help them decide right from wrong - let them have it.

All very well until they do something you happen to disapprove of (murdering a danish filmmaker) justifying the action by the exact same mechanism.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting munchingfoo from 14:35, 4th Aug 2008
Maybe I am missing something here, but this sounds like utter bollocks. In what way is UK society anti-religious? If you had argued that UK society is no longer dominated by Christianity, and that now a person is free to choose religion, or not, and if they choose religion, then which one they prefer then I'd agree with you. This is the way a free society should be. In what way is UK society ant-religious?

Foo, I think the nature of discussions on religion on this message board alone ought to make clear that the UK can be perceived as anti-religious. Considering the virulence with which religous believers are attacked, such as the message following yours or the OP, I think it'd be hard to say that believers are welcomed with open arms.

Ah, but this is the internet, you'd say. Still, I can't count the number of times I heard very anti-religious sentiments uttered during my time in St Andrews. The problem isn't the relevant levels of believers and non-believers, it's the tendency among a certain percentage of non-believers to regard believers as something less than human - brain damaged or such. I would say this creates the perception of a social stigma against religious belief, particularly among the young.

That said, it's not nearly as bad as some believers want to claim.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[novium]

So basically, your argument amounts to "some people are assholes, therefore RELIGION IS BAD"?

Now I can't imagine you extending this argument to others/other groups. I think Dawkins is a prime example of an obnoxious piece of work, but I hardly judge all scientists or atheists or men with thinning hair by him. Ok, I doubt he's been using his thinning hair to justify being obnoxious, but the other two would be fair game.

Quoting Haunted from 18:15, 4th Aug 2008
I can't see that Christian activities are in anyway threatening to non-Christians or detrimental to society.

I'll pick the easy ones. Protesting at funerals, picketing abortion clinics, beating up homosexuals. Now, you may well not call such things christian activities but some do and they use the same things you use for justifying deeds (book, faith, funny hat wearing man).
All very well until they do something you happen to disapprove of (murdering a danish filmmaker) justifying the action by the exact same mechanism.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn[/quote]

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[munchingfoo]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 18:47, 4th Aug 2008

Foo, I think the nature of discussions on religion on this message board alone ought to make clear that the UK can be perceived as anti-religious. Considering the virulence with which religous believers are attacked, such as the message following yours or the OP, I think it'd be hard to say that believers are welcomed with open arms.

Ah, but this is the internet, you'd say.

No - what I'd say to that is that you will find people who speak out against athiests, just as much as those who speak out against believers. That is the nature of a free society, and its how it should be. That doesn't mean that the UK is anti-religion. I actually believe that, although the balance has swung much towards the athiest view point, there is still a little way to go before we can say we are on a level playing field.

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[Frank]

I find it quite difficult to even begin to imagine St Andrews as at all representative of the prevailing trends of the UK.

I think there should always be mental alarm/warning bells sounding when one thinks "In my experience...".

Case in point: My experience of the rest of Scotland is that lacking religious affiliation (or rather: being openly sceptical or critical of any religion) often welcomes as much wrath and ruin as being overtly religious. If anything, I'd be tempted towards cynicism and claim that "the UK is pr-apathy", more than other options. But, as I say, this is entirely anecdotal!

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[UanarchyK]

I could tit-for-tat pick apart everything Jack said, though he actually said very little. But I'll settle for simply pointing out:

Quoting Jack from 21:32, 29th Jul 2008
I can ask questions that athiests can't answer logically in my opinion.

Logic is objective, it's science, mathematics, there is no opinion in it. This is the root of the problem with debating with religious people: they fail to see that in cases of logic, reality, truth, and fact there is no place for opinion, desire, or unsubstantiated belief.

There is no concrete evidence for the existence of a Christian deity, nor for any other god. Sure, Science can't disprove that a big man might have started the universe, but it also can not (currently and possibly ever) be proven. Teapot argument and all that.

My point is that no rational modern human, who tries to live his life by what makes sense rather than what he desires, would ever subscribe to anything but the most impotent of religions.

[Bob]

Quoting Haunted from 18:15, 4th Aug 2008
I'll pick the easy ones. Protesting at funerals, picketing abortion clinics, beating up homosexuals. Now, you may well not call such things christian activities but some do and they use the same things you use for justifying deeds (book, faith, funny hat wearing man).

There are various ethical reasons to be anti-abortion. It could also be argued that homosexuals are not good for society. Whether or not they use their mystical being as a reason to protest does not bother me.

It's not the bracelet that offends me, it's that the state has said it's ok to break the rules for religious reasons. The school had a no jewellery rule, no bracelets no crucifixes no darwin fish rings, nothing. This is about equality for all, are you argueing against this?

It might be easier for you to think of them as disabled people. The guy in the wheelchair gets to break the rules and not do gym class and the girl who's religious gets to wear her bracelet.

Would you have a problem with football clubs being tax exempt? Afterall their youth programs are really valuable to some communities. Bishops shouldn't need to be rolling in money anyway. I have no problem with the religious organisations that are geniunely all about charity being tax exempt.

I see your point. How do you decide whether an organisation is good enough to not have to pay taxes. I guess they should pay taxes. The amount of grievance and social rebellion it would cause to try and get them to pay taxes is not worth the bother in my eyes.

All very well until they do something you happen to disapprove of (murdering a danish filmmaker) justifying the action by the exact same mechanism.

As you say, nothing bothers me enough to think it's worthwhile changing this country into an atheist one - considering the amount of hassle involved in un-brainwashing these idiots. If they start saying that God is telling them to kill black and jewish people I may have a sudden change of heart.

At the end of the day most religious people are good natured. It makes no sense to completely outcast them (even if they are bonkers) because they are good for society.

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting UanarchyK from 20:34, 4th Aug 2008
Logic is objective, it's science, mathematics, there is no opinion in it.

Apologies in advance for pedantry, but logic is not science. Logic is a method of rational thinking and reasoning, and has nothing in itself to do with objectivity or even with fact, necessarily. It is entirely theoretical and mental and in it's pure form has no concern for the physical universe.

Science is, strictly speaking, a method of investigation into the physical universe. It relies upon experiment, observation, and deduction to make general claims from specific data. Like logic, it relies upon a process of reasoning to take given data (in this case known facts) and theorize about the conclusions that can be drawn from that data. Then science demands experimentation to prove that the hypothesis thus created is true.

Despite requiring a lot of theoretical thinking and mental analysis, science is fundamentally inseperable from physical reality. Logic is not so inseperable. That's why logic is taught as a philosophy and not as a science.

The point that arises out of this is that while you are correct and there is no place for opinion in logic, there is room for opinion in science. Different scientists will interpret data differently and come up with different hypotheses to explain it. Most of the historic breakthroughs have been the result of intuition rather than pure deductive logical reasoning. What keeps science rational is the requirement that any hypothesis, no matter how arrived at, has to be subjected to potential disproof through experimentation.

In order to be disproven by the scientific method, something has to be experimentable. Things which can not be disproven by experiment fall outside of science's balliwick, such as claims of the existence of God.

There are reasons to believe things to be true that are not scientific, however. If I were to tell you that I don't like to swim, I've made a claim about physical reality and yet there is no experiment that could be devised to prove that I don't like to swim. Fundamentally, you have to take my word for it, unless you have reason to believe otherwise - for example, having seen me at the beach in the water swimming and apparently having a good time. But again, that isn't *proof* since I could have simply been play-acting, and really having a terrible time.

We have to make decisions about what we believe to be true about many many things every single day that we either don't or can't subject to scientific analysis. Persons of a religious persuasion rest their case on admittedly circumstantial evidence, but there is no cause to dismiss such claims immediately out of hand on the basis that 'science can't (dis)prove that,' unless you really are prepared to go through life agnostic about most things and holding no opinions about anything (or, of course being a hypocrite and only using the 'science' excuse for the things *you* don't personally believe about the world).

I'm not saying you have to accept religious claims, either. I'm simply pointing out that there are reasons for believing things about the universe that are outside of science's scope. These beliefs range from the mundane (LP doesn't like to swim) to the profound (God created the universe), and it is illogical to accept the *possibility* of the truth of such beliefs provided they are mundane but to deny them categorically just because they happen to be about things on a larger scale.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 19:05, 4th Aug 2008
So basically, your argument amounts to "some people are assholes, therefore RELIGION IS BAD"?

Welcome back. Not at all, some people are indeed assholes and they come from all backgrounds. My arguement (in this instance) was against the "christianity is good because it makes peoples do good deeds" implication, which is easy to refute when you see that it makes people do some very bad deeds. What makes do a bad deed? Why the very same thing that may influence them to do a good deed, faith that they are doing gods work. In gods name is the ultimate justification and anything can be done using it.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting Bob from 20:12, 4th Aug 2008
There are various ethical reasons to be anti-abortion. It could also be argued that homosexuals are not good for society. Whether or not they use their mystical being as a reason to protest does not bother me.

I would much prefer if people did try to justify their actions without resorting to 'the good book'. "Ethical reasons against abortion? Sure, why not, lets hear them and discuss it. Whats that? God tells you it's a bad thing? Oh dear, well there goes any hope for a rational and reasonable discussion on the issue."

It might be easier for you to think of them as disabled people. The guy in the wheelchair gets to break the rules and not do gym class and the girl who's religious gets to wear her bracelet.

This really takes the biscuit for being the best false analogy I may ever have read on the sinner. How the bloody hell is wearing a bracelet like being unable to walk? 'Not doing gym class because you are incapable' is not breaking a rule. When a pupil is off ill they aren't breaking the rules by not attending school.

I see your point. How do you decide whether an organisation is good enough to not have to pay taxes. I guess they should pay taxes. The amount of grievance and social rebellion it would cause to try and get them to pay taxes is not worth the bother in my eyes.

There is a vetting procedure for all organisations seeking charitable status, the same rules should apply to all organisations. Doing the right thing may also be a bother but that's no reason not to do it.

As you say, nothing bothers me enough to think it's worthwhile changing this country into an atheist one - considering the amount of hassle involved in un-brainwashing these idiots. If they start saying that God is telling them to kill black and jewish people I may have a sudden change of heart.

Secular =/= atheist. Also, I'm not trying to get people to deconvert, I just want mysticism out of the system. What consenting adults choose to do behind closed doors is no business of mine.

At the end of the day most religious people are good natured. It makes no sense to completely outcast them (even if they are bonkers) because they are good for society.

Never said anything about ostracising anyone.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 13:19, 5th Aug 2008
Welcome back. Not at all, some people are indeed assholes and they come from all backgrounds. My arguement (in this instance) was against the "christianity is good because it makes peoples do good deeds" implication, which is easy to refute when you see that it makes people do some very bad deeds. What makes do a bad deed? Why the very same thing that may influence them to do a good deed, faith that they are doing gods work. In gods name is the ultimate justification and anything can be done using it.

Humans are masters of self-justification, Haunted. In my opinion people do bad things out of greed, envy, passion, or even apathy. Faith is merely a justification for what they've already decided to do, and in many cases people do bad in spite of their faith. Lacking God, those same people would simply find another means of justification. The Huns had an atheistic society after all, and you can't exactly argue that they were fuzzy and cuddly do-gooders.

Of course this brings us to an old argument: You say the presence of faith makes bad actions easier to justify and hence more common. I argue that the justification is irrelevant, the motivation to do bad is sufficient to ensure the act, and the justification is an after-the-fact (of the decision) consideration. You: religion is bad. Me: human nature is bad. That about sum it up?

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting Haunted from 13:34, 5th Aug 2008
I would much prefer if people did try to justify their actions without resorting to 'the good book'. "Ethical reasons against abortion? Sure, why not, lets hear them and discuss it. Whats that? God tells you it's a bad thing? Oh dear, well there goes any hope for a rational and reasonable discussion on the issue."

You're misconstruing the religious argument against abortion. The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion or infanticide. It does speak rather strongly about the wrong of murder, though. I think we can both agree that murder, in principle, is a bad thing.

The religious argument against abortion is an argument against murder, based on the premise that the unborn fetus is a human being and not some random hunk of tissue. One does not need to be religious to make the exact same argument or to arrive at it by the exact same method.

In other words: Fetus = child/human being. Murder = unjustified killing of a human being. Abortion = killing of a fetus. Abortion = murder.

The ethical, and also the religious, argument against abortion contest that abortion is not, or is rarely (such as cases of rape or incest which many opponents of abortion will concede), justifiable.

The pro-choice side tends to argue against the premise that a fetus is a human being before some arbitrary state of development. The problem is that this argument is... weak on all counts. The line drawn to signify when life begins can't help but be arbitrary. And it's just plain lying to claim that the fetus isn't human. Of course it's human, it has human DNA directing its development and left in situ it will become a human baby.

Now, I am pro-choice. But I don't deny that abortion is killing a human being. I simply believe that killing can be justified. What is more, arguing against the ethical/religious case agaisnt abortion requires that we come to terms with the fact that abortion is the killing of another human being, and from there seek to justify that killing. Otherwise the argument against is simply stronger than the argument for, since the anti- argument is simpler and more honest as things stand now. The anti-abortion crowd is currently on stonger moral ground. I don't believe they have to be, I think a strong case can be made for abortion, but it would require us to confront our notions of the value of life vs. the quality of life and to really realise that it's a dirty uncomfortable business indeed.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 19:10, 5th Aug 2008
Humans are masters of self-justification, Haunted. In my opinion people do bad things out of greed, envy, passion, or even apathy. Faith is merely a justification for what they've already decided to do, and in many cases people do bad in spite of their faith. Lacking God, those same people would simply find another means of justification. The Huns had an atheistic society after all, and you can't exactly argue that they were fuzzy and cuddly do-gooders.

Nor would I. I'm in complete agreement that human nature is the source of the problen. I am making the point that faith is a sort of catalyst. People are brought up to believe that 'having faith' is a good thing and that everyone must respect it.

Of course this brings us to an old argument: You say the presence of faith makes bad actions easier to justify and hence more common. I argue that the justification is irrelevant, the motivation to do bad is sufficient to ensure the act, and the justification is an after-the-fact (of the decision) consideration. You: religion is bad. Me: human nature is bad. That about sum it up?

Those two conclusions aren't mutually exclusive. Of course you will get people doing bad deeds without religious faith, to say otherwise would be naive. If faith makes the justification easier then it certainly isn't irrelevant. Another intrinsic property of religious faith is to dangle rewards of paradise over the faithful, even after their own death. Someone who is convinced they will survive their death and end up in heaven will do anything.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[Haunted]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 19:26, 5th Aug 2008
You're misconstruing the religious argument against abortion. The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion or infanticide. It does speak rather strongly about the wrong of murder, though. I think we can both agree that murder, in principle, is a bad thing.

There are a few bible verses that imply personhood begins at (and sometimes before) conception. With this in mind then abortion automatically becomes murder because you are terminating a person. Also, killing may be different to murder.

The Didache (early christian doctrine) contains commandments against abortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache

The religious argument against abortion is an argument against murder, based on the premise that the unborn fetus is a human being and not some random hunk of tissue. One does not need to be religious to make the exact same argument or to arrive at it by the exact same method.

The premise that the fetus is a person does have some base in religious texts. However, the exact line of when a hunk of cells becomes a person is something that hasn't been settled since our definition of what a person is is rather poor. There are plenty of non-religious people that hold prolife opinions (and plenty of religious people who are prochoice of course). The basis for the position is what is different though. Some religious people say that god defines life at conception and god is against murder. It is the basis for the first premise that I take issue with.

The ethical, and also the religious, argument against abortion contest that abortion is not, or is rarely (such as cases of rape or incest which many opponents of abortion will concede), justifiable.

I think your exceptions are rather hypocritical. Even if the conception was forced or incestuous, the abortion would still be murder and murder is wrong.

The pro-choice side tends to argue against the premise that a fetus is a human being before some arbitrary state of development. The problem is that this argument is... weak on all counts. The line drawn to signify when life begins can't help but be arbitrary.

Conception is also an arbitrary place to draw it.

And it's just plain lying to claim that the fetus isn't human. Of course it's human, it has human DNA directing its development and left in situ it will become a human baby.

Well we are deviating slihgtly now but it's a very open issue. A single cell is not human. Potentially it is, but in that state it is not. A sperm and an egg left in situ will potentially become a human baby. Two people having sex left in situ will potentially produce a human baby. Some draw the line at the development of the nervous system or when the fetus can feel pain. Some even draw it at birth.

Now, I am pro-choice. But I don't deny that abortion is killing a human being. I simply believe that killing can be justified. What is more, arguing against the ethical/religious case agaisnt abortion requires that we come to terms with the fact that abortion is the killing of another human being, and from there seek to justify that killing.

Well those are the two things to reconcile. Either it is killing and the killing is justified, or it isn't killing because the embryo isn't a human. If you go with the latter you are left with the minefield of trying to place a line on when a bunch of cells become human and earn all the rights that come with that. Personnaly I do believe killing can be justified given the circumstances and I'm far from convinced that a microscopic group of cells has human rights. I suppose that lands me in the pro-choice camp.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[novium]

A justification is something you make up after you've made a decision. I don't think religion is the ultimate justification. I think whatever someone believes in can be used as their ultimate justification... be it nationalism, communism, the good of their family, racism, peace, egalitarianism, history, art, a philosophy... a religious justification is just one of many. But it seems to me that you're not really arguing that it's a justification as much as it's an incentive, and I'd have to disagree there. I think arguments to the contrary smack of 'the devil made me do it'. I don't think we really need an incentive, because the darker sides of our natures already have impulses in that direction.

yes, I think that anything you believe in, anything that makes up a fundamental part of how you perceive the world, can inspire you to do good things or inspire you to do evil things. Inspiration, though, is not a /cause/. Inspiration is something internal, a product of one's own mind, and therefore every action and decision has its roots in one's own self. Justifications are just the window dressing.

Quoting Haunted from 13:19, 5th Aug 2008

Quoting novium from 19:05, 4th Aug 2008
So basically, your argument amounts to "some people are assholes, therefore RELIGION IS BAD"?

Welcome back. Not at all, some people are indeed assholes and they come from all backgrounds. My arguement (in this instance) was against the "christianity is good because it makes peoples do good deeds" implication, which is easy to refute when you see that it makes people do some very bad deeds. What makes do a bad deed? Why the very same thing that may influence them to do a good deed, faith that they are doing gods work. In gods name is the ultimate justification and anything can be done using it.

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[hr]

Neither the storms of crisis, nor the breezes of ambition could ever divert him, either by hope or by fear, from the course that he had chosen

[Haunted]

Quoting novium from 18:47, 6th Aug 2008
A justification is something you make up after you've made a decision.

It's also something you use to convince other people.

I don't think religion is the ultimate justification.

It's the ultimate because it cannot be questioned. It god tells you to do something you have to do it and thats that. If you're going to respect religious belief then you must respect someone when they tell you that god told them to do x, no matter what x is. It is not something you can only buy into slightly, either it's all ok or none of it is.

I think whatever someone believes in can be used as their ultimate justification... be it nationalism, communism, the good of their family, racism, peace, egalitarianism, history, art, a philosophy... a religious justification is just one of many.

Yes it's not the only justification, but it is one that is championed above all others. For the grace of god, in gods name, for all that is holy. If you are utterly convinced that god wants you to do x you will do x no matter what it is. "For good people to do evil, takes religion".

But it seems to me that you're not really arguing that it's a justification as much as it's an incentive, and I'd have to disagree there.

Not an incentive? Where do you think the 9/11 bombers figured they'd be at the end of that day? How many virgins were waiting for them in paradise? And all their old family and friends, you get to meet them again! Isn't that something worth killing for, worth dying for?

I think arguments to the contrary smack of 'the devil made me do it'. I don't think we really need an incentive, because the darker sides of our natures already have impulses in that direction.

I'm not following you here.

yes, I think that anything you believe in, anything that makes up a fundamental part of how you perceive the world, can inspire you to do good things or inspire you to do evil things. Inspiration, though, is not a /cause/. Inspiration is something internal, a product of one's own mind, and therefore every action and decision has its roots in one's own self.

All nature no nurture? People haven't been influenced by their culture in any way at all?

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn

[munchingfoo]

Quoting LonelyPilgrim from 00:20, 5th Aug 2008
That's why logic is taught as a philosophy and not as a science.

I think you'll find it's taught as both (well, as maths and [theoretical] maths isn't science, but since he said maths we'll let it slip).

How do you think this little box you are typing into works? Logic is a way of devising truths, untruths, and facts. Unfortunately it is of no use when dealing with certain negative proofs like the non-existance of god(s).

[hr]

"The entirety of these definitions lie outside the gamut of the sRGB color space — such a pure color cannot be represented using RGB primaries. The color swatch to the right is a desaturated approximation, created by taking the centroid of the standard definition and moving it towards the D65 white point, until it meets the sRGB gamut triangle."

[LonelyPilgrim]

Quoting munchingfoo from 01:06, 7th Aug 2008
I think you'll find it's taught as both (well, as maths and [theoretical] maths isn't science, but since he said maths we'll let it slip).

How do you think this little box you are typing into works? Logic is a way of devising truths, untruths, and facts. Unfortunately it is of no use when dealing with certain negative proofs like the non-existance of god(s).

I have no idea how this little box works. However I know it doesn't rely solely on logic. Using logical concepts and even logical formulae does not make computer science into logic. Consider that you need to use a lot of maths in accounting, but if you get a degree in accounting you aren't considered a mathematician.

As I said in my previous post, science does rely on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a *part* of logical reasoning, no doubt. And so the scientist also learns a part of logic, as a tool, but as a pure subject logic remains a philosophy and not a science.

[hr]

Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova

[Mr Comedy]

These threads are alarmingly common now, aren't they?

To challenge some basic reasoning errors:

Just because some people who are religious are murdering, picketing funerals etc., doesn't mean all of them are. This is an argument on the same plane of deductive reasoning as "Mugabe is terrible, therefore all politicians are" and "Joey Barton is an asshat, therefore all footballers are". Extending it out logically doesn't work either. Politics isn't wrong because certain politicians are wrong, and football isn't wrong because certain footballers are.
For those of you recycling arguments from Dawkins, this is his singularly worst argument as it makes no sense at all.

Secondly, the abortion is wrong idea comes from where the Bible says pretty much "you become a person at the point of conception". As such we go with the murder = wrong, therefore abortion = wrong line sketched out above. If you want my views, I'm all for abortion if the mother has been raped, there are serious medical complications etc. Unfortunately the vast majority of abortions are simply for matters of convenience (I don't want to be pregant at this time, I don't want to have a child yet etc) and is almost seen as the last step contraceptive method. If you strangled to death your baby after they were born you'd be in court for murder. If they are pre-natal, and as outlined above, could be carried to term, I personally don't see it as significantly removed. I'd want to bring the date you can abort back for non-medicial or pyschological reasons for this reason.
Note: this in no way condones the action of certain pro-Life groups, in much the same way as I agree that fathers should have access to their children but I don't agree with everything Fathers for Justice do.

There seems to be a lot of flaws in some people's arguments about religion. If we put the same reasoning in a different, non-religious context (like the Mugabe example above), everyone would decry it as a bonkers argument. But because critising religion is something people are keen to do, they miss the gaps in their deductive reasoning and invalidate their own arguments.

[hr]

"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung