q.e.d. means in Latin quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". q.e.d. is used at the end of Philosophy (I was a Theology Student) arguments and in science. It seemed strange to see that used here on Hacker News and I have no idea what you were trying to say. I am asking what did you mean by q.e.d.?
>The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons.
You have a strong bias against religion without data. To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it. The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious. This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism.
> bible clearly tells them that they don't need to do anything because god will take care of it.
There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima...
I didn't mean anything by it, that comment wasn't mine. But the comment used it exactly as you defined it: 50CNT tried to show that the CDU is not christian by mentioning that they follow christian doctrine. Given that that is actually an argument for the position that the CDU is in fact christian, there is no need to provide any further arguments, k__ simply concluded: QED.
> You have a strong bias against religion without data.
How do you know what data I have?
> To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it.
Well, I can assure you that you are mistaken.
> The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious.
Your point being?
> This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism.
Could you please show where I made any such claim? Or was that an attempt to build a strawman argument?
> There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima....
You missed the point: I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that others care and try to justify their actions on that basis, which is irresponsible, as nobody has demonstrated that that is a way to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (plus there are plenty of examples to the contrary). That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information.
I am not trying to be mean or arguing as much as I want to have a dialog about what you communicated and what you mean which isn't the same thing normally.
> How do you know what data I have?
The old academic in me is you don't have any unless you show some.
> I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that ...
You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data.
> That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information.
Because people DON'T read the data and refuse to look at it. Just as frustrating is to see Excel spreadsheets of data from an original data set with no idea how they got to their conclusion. You are in one sentence just dismissed 90%+ of knowledge. Statistics, Science, all soft sciences etc.... And in fact this all comes back to data. Look at the data or walk away but don't argue from a point of ignorance and base it on personal experiences, belief systems, and emotions.
Hope you have a good day and know I am not trying to get you to believe what I do but I am trying to encourage you to look at the way you are presenting yourself. I do believe you are trying to communicate A but you are being perceived to hold to B.
> You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data.
First: "not caring" in this context means that I don't consider the content of the bible to be relevant to this argument, which is not to be confused with lack of knowledge, aka ignorance.
Second: I very much care about the data. Now, do you have any data for me to look at?
Now, to avoid any confusion, let me re-state my claim: The bible has not been demonstrated to be a reliable source of knowledge about the world. Therefore, it's irresponsible to make decisions about your or other people's lives based on information from the bible.
This is certainly different then being respectful of religion. I am more then able to go into details and such but I don't think this is the place for it. If you want you can email me at mtelesha at the big G company email account.
If you want information on historical facts and academic inaccurate information and myths by lazy academics dipping their toes in a discipline they don't know about I would love to. I have a ton of those stories. The academic discipline of a Biblical Scholar (I am more of Theology trained aka more history facts and figures and philosophy based) I can lay out a decent academic data.
Just so we are clear this would be non-proselytizing and more of an fact finding from academia. It really is an awesome study and many academics and PhD of the Bible are not even Christians but are fascinated by the historical data and the academic discipline.
> This is certainly different then being respectful of religion.
Do you think that there is anything wrong with that?
> Just so we are clear this would be non-proselytizing and more of an fact finding from academia. It really is an awesome study and many academics and PhD of the Bible are not even Christians but are fascinated by the historical data and the academic discipline.
Now, if you actually could demonstrate the reliability of the bible as a source for knowledge about the world, I certainly would be extremely interested.
The problem is that you are exhibiting many of the common signs that usually indicate someone lacks understanding of the philosophy of science and more generally of epistemology, so it's extremely likely that you are going to trot out the same old arguments that I have heard endless times, and that have been refuted over and over. So, my suggestion would be: Go, get yourself a few books that explain that stuff, and learn what the arguments of the "other side" actually are, that should make for a far more productive conversation. If you like watching videos, this might also be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/videos - in particular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAQFYgyEACI , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwG7LJTTZFc , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNIfzlzmJ8Y
Also: Yes, the bible certainly is an important book to study due to its influence on society, and it (or rather, the many versions of it) certainly has/have a history that can give many interesting insights. All I am disagreeing with is that it provides reliable knowledge about the world that is in any way fundamentally different from any other (ancient) book. And just as one can study the iliad without believing that Zeus actually existed, it's perfectly reasonable to study the bible without being a christian, of course.
>The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons.
You have a strong bias against religion without data. To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it. The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious. This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism.
> bible clearly tells them that they don't need to do anything because god will take care of it.
There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima...