God and Bananas

Status
Not open for further replies.
JasonFox said:
But there are just as many – and probably more, I'll have to take a census – that look at things with a pre-determined answer already in mind.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you complete that census...A don't confuse real scientists with the pundits you see blabbering on television. Most of them are just trying to sell books by being controversial.
 
Mark Harris said:
Please do take a census. Or at least give some examples of how this is widespread in the "scientific community." Because the only time I ever hear this is when a creationist is trying to force religion into schools.

Obviously, everyone has bias to overcome, and scientists are wrong all the time. But you will not be able to back your assertion up with actual facts.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who already has their answer predetermined.
 
Aw, c'mon... The debating was so civil in the first few pages. Everyone complains when threads are shut down, but they don't change their behavior the next time something controversial comes around.

Use some tact. Discussions of this nature don't always have to lead to personal attacks.
 
I'm not not getting along. Someone made a bald assertion with no facts. I simply asked for facts. That's what logical argument is all about.

Unless you want me to go back to all the places a human penis will fit into...
 
I've been trying my best to be reasonably neutral :)

The only thing I really hate about the banana video is that's a perfect example of somebody displaying limited intelligence pompously... and using one INCREDIBLY simple concept in a horrible attempt to explain something so so much more complicated. Mark there's another banana video floating around that I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Just as that guy's banana argument is a fallacy... the phallic argument is just as "fallic".

Look at Galileo's "vitruvian man"... there's no doubt that body parts fit together. I've always thought it was funny that people can perfectly pick their own nose (amongst other things). A finger is good for the same argument (I mean)... probably even more so.
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
I've been trying my best to be reasonably neutral :)

The only thing I really hate about the banana video is that's a perfect example of somebody displaying limited intelligence pompously... and using one INCREDIBLY simple concept in a horrible attempt to explain something so so much more complicated. Mark there's another banana video floating around that I'm sure you'd enjoy.

Just as that guy's banana argument is a fallacy... the phallic argument is just as "fallic".

Look at Galileo's "vitruvian man"... there's no doubt that body parts fit together. I've always thought it was funny that most people can perfectly pick their own nose (amongst other things).
Click to expand...


Well, I agree with you about the video. That's why my firsts posts were so absurd about the banana, because in reality they were no less silly than that dude.
 
Mark Harris said:
I'm not not getting along. Someone made a bald assertion with no facts. I simply asked for facts. That's what logical argument is all about.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'd be more than willing to go deep into this discussion, but I've already been banned once...I've had to pre-delete more than one post today. Anyway, it will go nowhere. You can't have a logical argument where faith is concerned.
 
if you didn't watch this video, but instead listened to it described...

1. the man is named ray comfort.

2. he has a mustache.

3. he shows us how he holds his banana.

4. he tells us that when we pull the tab it won't spray in your face.

5. the wrapper is biodegradable.

6. the top is just the right shape to fit in your mouth.

7. it's even curved toward the face to make the process so much easier.
 
Batutta said:
Believe me, I'd be more than willing to go deep into this discussion, but I've already been banned once...I've had to pre-delete more than one post today. Anyway, it will go nowhere. You can't have a logical argument where faith is concerned.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

In the end even rationality ends in irrationality, even logic has its limits, and if you wanted to be truely logical then you would abandon it by its own rules.

Anhar
 
If I were to make a balanced video that hit both sides, I'd title it "Bananas and Mosquitos"...

Is faith exclusive of logic? Why abandon logic in favor of faith?

Am I reading that correctly?
 
Mark Harris said:
If you can provide facts to support your assertion, I would have no choice but to change my mind. Do you have any intention of even looking for them?
Click to expand...

No, I don't have any intention of looking for them. I honestly don't have time. And I'm not trying to call you out as a jerk or anything, either. Are you going to provide support for your assertion that all people who call themselves scientists are seekers? No? Cool. I don't care that you don't. I just disagree with the statement.
 
And I'm buying Anhar the beverage of his choice if I ever get the pleasure of meeting him in person. :beer:
 
Anhar Miah said:
Not abandon, but understand the following:

Because in the end even logic rests partially on faith.

Anhar
Click to expand...

Yes, but religion is pure faith, belief based on little or no evidence. Science is belief based on the best evidence at hand...Anyway I just don't understand why religious people even get involved in these arguments, trying to back up their religion with science. Anyone who needs science to bolster their faith is on shaky ground to begin with. It's called faith for a reason. You either have it or you don't.
 
Batutta said:
Yes, but religion is pure faith, belief based on little or no evidence. Science is belief based on the best evidence at hand.
Click to expand...

Thats not entirely true, religion is based upon rational and reasoning with indirect evidence (inference) but does not claim absolute evidence (hence the faith part).

Science is based upon indirect inference based upon data (sampled) that is interpreted to fit the theorectical models that best explain said inferered data, thus it suffers from the "problem of Induction", the only partial solution is the "scientific method" (which does not completly satisfy the Induction problem, but gives us a workable process, hence inlists partial faith).

Then there is the "Measurement Problem".

Some people (atheist) want to claim science is exclusively for themselfs, however they can not actually justify this, at least in theory science is alledgely neutral, it can't be used for either camp.

There is a third alternative, where science and thelogy are mutually inclusive, however the West Centric experience of Science and Theology IS greatly different to Eastern Centric Science and Theology, to apply one worldview and Historicity over another worldview and Historicity will indeed be flawed. Put simplly the History of Science in the West (in relation to religion) is vastly different to that of Eastern Centric History, where the Western Narrative has seen Science and religion have a fallout, the Eastern Narrative is vastly different and the total opposite, where religion and science has seen to compliment each other.


Anhar

EDIT://

@ Jason, Cheers! I may one day hold you to that :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top