Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.


Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!

Of course they will, it's their field. xp


I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant

And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.


I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp


I do not believe you understand what a `peer-reviewed` is in the context of peer-reviewed journals. The accrediting process is not accrediting the facts being presented, it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study.


But if it's your "peer", of course they're going to be like "oh, of course you're right!"

I mean, you're saying that they'll hold themselves up to those standards, so comparing themselves to these other people who say they hold themselves up to these standards, we should be okay.


But if that other guy who reviewed his information holds himself to a "personal standard", and the guy who's presenting the info supposedly holds himself to a "personal standard", than at what point do we have an outside standard these people are held up to?

If they're just approving each other's works than who's, on the outside, making sure they're right?


"it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study."

Which is exactly my point, it should be accrediting the facts, since this is what science's purpose is.


Also I'm mostly joking.

But still lol
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears


Secularism. Religious faith is a mighty fine choice for anyone who chooses it. Legislature should be based on pure fact; it should not be used to enforce values from one religion unto an entire nation, many of whom have no cause to believe that legislature holds any value.

For example; Joe Schmo, a good, bible-abiding Christian, is (an entirely fictional) president, and he would not plant two crops in the same field, as his books have taught him. Should President Joe Schmo fight for legislature forbidding all citizens to do this when Fred, who studies agriculture, and has written several peer-reviewed and accredited scientific journals regarding this topic, knows that this practise will not have maximum yield?


Pssft, the problem with peer reviewed science is that it's self aggrandizing.

Maybe if people outside of the field were able to confirm it I'd believe it but self approving sources seem sketchy to me.


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.


Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!

Of course they will, it's their field. xp


I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant

And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.


I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp


I do not believe you understand what a `peer-reviewed` is in the context of peer-reviewed journals. The accrediting process is not accrediting the facts being presented, it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study.


But if it's your "peer", of course they're going to be like "oh, of course you're right!"

I mean, you're saying that they'll hold themselves up to those standards, so comparing themselves to these other people who say they hold themselves up to these standards, we should be okay.


But if that other guy who reviewed his information holds himself to a "personal standard", and the guy who's presenting the info supposedly holds himself to a "personal standard", than at what point do we have an outside standard these people are held up to?

If they're just approving each other's works than who's, on the outside, making sure they're right?


"it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study."

Which is exactly my point, it should be accrediting the facts, since this is what science's purpose is.


Also I'm mostly joking.

But still lol


For those of you who do not have humorous sentiments regarding this topic; the 'facts' presented in journals are NEW facts. There's no handbook that any given professional can pull out to 'double check' results. Its not accredited as a fact unless the results can be reproduced. Although they are peers, they are also competition, with different backgrounds (educationally) and focuses of study. If the only journals produced could be checked directly based on what we already know, there would be no progress in science.
Fermionic
scacchic
Fermionic
It is the product of fleeing for religious freedom.

But why didn't America become less devout the way Europe did? It's not like religious Europeans were fleeing atheist countries.


The founding principles of European countries are less often those of religious grounding.

Is that why church and state isn't separate in Europe?
God Emperor Akhenaton
Fermionic
scacchic
Fermionic
It is the product of fleeing for religious freedom.

But why didn't America become less devout the way Europe did? It's not like religious Europeans were fleeing atheist countries.


The founding principles of European countries are less often those of religious grounding.

Is that why church and state isn't separate in Europe?

Church and state are separate in most European nations.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


Well if God wants it I guess you got me there. xp

I mean I didn't think so, nor think that Christians did, but if God said it I guess we have no other option but floods and hurricanes and whatnot. xp
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


Well if God wants it I guess you got me there. xp

I mean I didn't think so, nor think that Christians did, but if God said it I guess we have no other option but floods and hurricanes and whatnot. xp

Hey, I only read it, I don't believe! XD
forever_fears
God Emperor Akhenaton
Fermionic
scacchic
Fermionic
It is the product of fleeing for religious freedom.

But why didn't America become less devout the way Europe did? It's not like religious Europeans were fleeing atheist countries.


The founding principles of European countries are less often those of religious grounding.

Is that why church and state isn't separate in Europe?

Church and state are separate in most European nations.

Most European nations have an established church.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears


Maybe you could explain what is self-aggrandizing about having other professionals of the same sub science reviewing the hypothesis, thesis, and how the study has applied to the thesis, and refusing to accredit work that has a clear bias in funding vs. result, result vs. testing subjects, and testing subjects vs. census results... because I see that as fitting the scientific method.


Because, other people in the same field are saying it's true!

Of course they will, it's their field. xp


I mean, I had peer reviewed science of giant lizard aliens ruling the world secretly and all my fellow peers said it was true! But yet no-one believes it. emotion_donotwant

And all things will have some form of bias to it, but that doesn't discredit the research entirely.


I mean maybe if people of different fields were able to scientifically confirm I'd believe but when you use a self referencing hypothesis, there's a huge potential for error. xp




I do not believe you understand what a `peer-reviewed` is in the context of peer-reviewed journals. The accrediting process is not accrediting the facts being presented, it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study.


But if it's your "peer", of course they're going to be like "oh, of course you're right!"

I mean, you're saying that they'll hold themselves up to those standards, so comparing themselves to these other people who say they hold themselves up to these standards, we should be okay.


But if that other guy who reviewed his information holds himself to a "personal standard", and the guy who's presenting the info supposedly holds himself to a "personal standard", than at what point do we have an outside standard these people are held up to?

If they're just approving each other's works than who's, on the outside, making sure they're right?


"it is accrediting the method by which the researcher actually preformed the study."

Which is exactly my point, it should be accrediting the facts, since this is what science's purpose is.


Also I'm mostly joking.

But still lol


For those of you who do not have humorous sentiments regarding this topic; the 'facts' presented in journals are NEW facts. There's no handbook that any given professional can pull out to 'double check' results. Its not accredited as a fact unless the results can be reproduced. Although they are peers, they are also competition, with different backgrounds (educationally) and focuses of study. If the only journals produced could be checked directly based on what we already know, there would be no progress in science.


My point is that peer review isn't necessarily proper validation, and that science possesses it's own merits beyond what other people say about it, scientists or not.

So, it isn't the end all be all of everything; plus reviewing something isn't the same as approving of it.


That being said, I believe the majority of most science publications are trying to be as right as possible.

That also doesn't mean that they are, but I'm not crazy enough to believe it should all be thrown out the window.


Some of it doh. ninja

That stuff needs to be attacked. ninja
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


Well if God wants it I guess you got me there. xp

I mean I didn't think so, nor think that Christians did, but if God said it I guess we have no other option but floods and hurricanes and whatnot. xp

Hey, I only read it, I don't believe! XD


lol xD

But I guess we could save them by making simply not marrying them if they aren't a virgin; thus God decreed, one night stands are the only option!
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


Well if God wants it I guess you got me there. xp

I mean I didn't think so, nor think that Christians did, but if God said it I guess we have no other option but floods and hurricanes and whatnot. xp

Hey, I only read it, I don't believe! XD


lol xD

But I guess we could save them by making simply not marrying them if they aren't a virgin; thus God decreed, one night stands are the only option!

I'll tag along- just in case wink
I AM R U's avatar

Savage Fairy

12,700 Points
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Ultimate Player 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Fermionic
It is the product of fleeing for religious freedom.


And yet didn't the founding fathers want secularism? That's kinda gone out the window...
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


Well if God wants it I guess you got me there. xp

I mean I didn't think so, nor think that Christians did, but if God said it I guess we have no other option but floods and hurricanes and whatnot. xp

Hey, I only read it, I don't believe! XD


lol xD

But I guess we could save them by making simply not marrying them if they aren't a virgin; thus God decreed, one night stands are the only option!

I'll tag along- just in case wink


ninja

We could also learn how to fly; this might solve a lot of our problems. xp
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
Why does it matter? Can't we all just keep to ourselves, and not worry about others' life choices?
black_wing_angel's avatar

Blessed Rogue

10,450 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Mega Tipsy 100
forever_fears
Suicidesoldier#1


But not all Christians want to stone non-virginal brides. xp

I'm pretty sure the majority wouldn't approve of that.


Then the majority do not understand what God wants. Stoning non-virginal brides is very clearly a value copy-pasted from the bible.


The bible isn't honestly a great source for "what God wants". Perhaps the original copy, but throughout the centuries, there have been mistranslations, misinterpretations, and the occasional intentional corruption for political gain. The bible we see today, is probably strikingly different than the bible written directly under the musing of God.

To better explain: In the course of my life thus far, I have been a member of 3 different churches. Each one told the same story from the bible, as written in 3 different bibles. And they had 3 different messages drawn from the same single story. DRASTICALLY different messages.

This is why I'm Agnostic Christian. I believe very strongly in the existence of a holy deity. Specifically in the Holy Trinity. But I don't believe that mankind can ever understand or dictate what it is that God actually wants.

On another note: According to the bible as we read it today, God once turned a woman to a pillar of salt, because she directly disobeyed his order to not look back, when fleeing a city he was destroying. Specifically the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

If he can do that....why the [********] would he want us to do it for him, just because we "think" that it's what he wants?

As far as I can tell, all the "stone the sinner" concept amounts to, is people pushing a political agenda, under the guise of religious conviction. Just like how the Mormons justify racism, by claiming that black skin was a curse bestowed upon neutral parties in the Celestial War.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games