[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:
You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
[/quote]
We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.
Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.
[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:
You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.
Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:
[/quote]
Thank you very much for explaining what should have been obvious. I think he was in a rush to “make it personal”. Glass houses and all…[/quote]
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
If you don’t “get” the above, I’m losing confidence in your alleged intellectual prowess that you showed in the CA discussions.
I’m sorry this has to be explained to you, but I will anyway.
Your entire argument about the “popularity” of Christianity is fallacious. I was using Islam to ILLUSTRATE the falsity of the argument. Are you denying that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive? Because last I checked, Islam (among others) denies Jesus’ divinity.
I’m starting to believe you heavily plagiarized during the CA discussion or, you’re a one trick pony. Because your arguments here are underwhelming. That you do not see the Islam illustration is astounding to me. And for the record, I’m going to sleep in less than an hour and I won’t lose a moment of it worrying what you or “sloth” think about me. Stick to the discussion.
[/quote]
Your one to talk…Are you going to fly down to GA to kick my ass now??
We were talking about influence in history, how Jesus’s existence was the most influential of any single human on earth, then you denied it, but could produce a single example of someone more influential.
It doesn’t matter if you deny Jesus’s divinity, the influence of Jesus, via Christianity has changed the world, period. That was the point.
You move the target all around, change what you are talking about and accuse me of failing the logical rigidity test. What’s more then that you go and make up your own logical fallacies that don’t exist to describe something I didn’t say?
This is your own epic fail. But please don’t beat me up for it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It depends on what you mean by wrong. Was the geocentric universe wrong, even though it was the most correct available model? Was the sun centered universe wrong, even though it was a better model?[/quote]
I get your point, I could see that if you warped back in time (ha!) and took a physics class that you would be annoyed at your teacher for marking you down wrong if you brought up the ‘incorrect model’, but with most post-doctoral research there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
As a physicist myself I wouldn’t say that our current model of the universe is correct, I would say it is the best approximation we have given the information we have at hand.
I doubt there will ever be a time when you will have a 100% satisfactory answer (or even if you know one when it is given to you).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If your criteria for being right is being useful, modern physics is wrong and newton was right, because newton is useful.[/quote]
Yes, Newton’s laws are useful. But modern physics and newton’s laws are one in the same. There haven’t really been any major improvements since Einstein, and if Einstein’s laws and theories had a great enough degree of uncertainty to be labelled ‘wrong’ then the equations and theories used to create the CERN collider, lasers & space probes simply wouldn’t have worked.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But useful is an odd notion of correctness.
[/quote]
My example of a GPS and TV remote was not to demonstrate usefulness but proof (well, as close as you can currently get to proof).
Is it not proof that Newton’s laws of mechanics work if I can calculate to a very high degree of accuracy how long it takes for an object to drop from a certain height?
Is it not proof that the principles of geometry and other physical laws work if the trajectory of the rocket/lunar module being launched from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 in Merritt Island, Florida can be calculated/predicated accurately all the way to the Moon?
The same analogy works for the GPS and TV remotes, ultimately their creation goes back to equations and theories brought on by mathematics and physics.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
It depends on what you mean by wrong. Was the geocentric universe wrong, even though it was the most correct available model? Was the sun centered universe wrong, even though it was a better model?[/quote]
I get your point, I could see that if you warped back in time (ha!) and took a physics class that you would be annoyed at your teacher for marking you down wrong if you brought up the ‘incorrect model’, but with most post-doctoral research there isn’t a right or wrong answer.
As a physicist myself I wouldn’t say that our current model of the universe is correct, I would say it is the best approximation we have given the information we have at hand.
I doubt there will ever be a time when you will have a 100% satisfactory answer (or even if you know one when it is given to you).
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If your criteria for being right is being useful, modern physics is wrong and newton was right, because newton is useful.[/quote]
Yes, Newton’s laws are useful. But modern physics and newton’s laws are one in the same. There haven’t really been any major improvements since Einstein, and if Einstein’s laws and theories had a great enough degree of uncertainty to be labelled ‘wrong’ then the equations and theories used to create the CERN collider, lasers & space probes simply wouldn’t have worked.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But useful is an odd notion of correctness.
[/quote]
My example of a GPS and TV remote was not to demonstrate usefulness but proof (well, as close as you can currently get to proof).
Is it not proof that Newton’s laws of mechanics work if I can calculate to a very high degree of accuracy how long it takes for an object to drop from a certain height?
Is it not proof that the principles of geometry and other physical laws work if the trajectory of the rocket/lunar module being launched from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 in Merritt Island, Florida can be calculated/predicated accurately all the way to the Moon?
The same analogy works for the GPS and TV remotes, ultimately their creation goes back to equations and theories brought on by mathematics and physics.[/quote]
But working or not isn’t an exact target. You are talking about an bounded area of function.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But working or not isn’t an exact target. You are talking about an bounded area of function.[/quote]
Well if you want to try and formulate a ‘new science’ (and language for that matter) that is far superior to maths and physics and does deal with exacts then be my guest, but 99.999…% accuracy that enables me to do the tasks that I set out to do is good enough for me.
Formulating such a science will only be necassery if physics and maths turns out to be not good enough to develop space travel and give humans absolute security from extinction.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
But working or not isn’t an exact target. You are talking about an bounded area of function.[/quote]
Well if you want to try and formulate a ‘new science’ (and language for that matter) that is far superior to maths and physics and does deal with exacts then be my guest, but 99.999…% accuracy that enables me to do the tasks that I set out to do is good enough for me.
Formulating such a science will only be necassery if physics and maths turns out to be not good enough to develop space travel and give humans absolute security from extinction.
[/quote]
So, like I said earlier, real science is engineering?
And that’s already invented, that’s the theoretical side.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
Well it’s certainly part of our nature. Even those who claim not to have any usually just replace it. Inherently we know we are part of something greater and we seek to understand it.
I can’t say my dog does that. As long as she has food, company and comfort, she couldn’t give a shit less.
[quote]groo wrote:<<< Some things can be proven in the non empirical fields like math.>>>[/quote]When it becomes possible I will show you why this is an utter falsehood. Elder Forlife could do it better though.
[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:
You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
[/quote]
We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.
Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.
[/quote]
Ok, I’ll play your game.
“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.
But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”??
[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:
You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.
Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:
[/quote]
Thank you very much for explaining what should have been obvious. I think he was in a rush to “make it personal”. Glass houses and all…[/quote]
Just keep moving your targets to make your point. [/quote]
I didn’t move a thing. You clarified, and now I have responded. Carry on sir. Tell us why you raised the alleged influence of the man known as Jesus within the context of this thread if it were not at least to imply a measure of validity.
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
If you don’t “get” the above, I’m losing confidence in your alleged intellectual prowess that you showed in the CA discussions.
I’m sorry this has to be explained to you, but I will anyway.
Your entire argument about the “popularity” of Christianity is fallacious. I was using Islam to ILLUSTRATE the falsity of the argument. Are you denying that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive? Because last I checked, Islam (among others) denies Jesus’ divinity.
I’m starting to believe you heavily plagiarized during the CA discussion or, you’re a one trick pony. Because your arguments here are underwhelming. That you do not see the Islam illustration is astounding to me. And for the record, I’m going to sleep in less than an hour and I won’t lose a moment of it worrying what you or “sloth” think about me. Stick to the discussion.
[/quote]
Your one to talk…Are you going to fly down to GA to kick my ass now??
We were talking about influence in history, how Jesus’s existence was the most influential of any single human on earth, then you denied it, but could produce a single example of someone more influential.
It doesn’t matter if you deny Jesus’s divinity, the influence of Jesus, via Christianity has changed the world, period. That was the point.
You move the target all around, change what you are talking about and accuse me of failing the logical rigidity test. What’s more then that you go and make up your own logical fallacies that don’t exist to describe something I didn’t say?
This is your own epic fail. But please don’t beat me up for it.[/quote]
You’re moving the target and I’ve responded, and I’ll respond again since you’re apparently stuck. Why did YOU raise the “influence” of Jesus within the context of this thread, if not to imply some form of validity?
I made up a logical fallacy? Appealing to Widespread Belief is not a fallacy? Why? Did you have a problem googling it to Latin or something?
And dude, really…if you want to be personal, make a thread about me and jerk off there. In the meantime, try to stick to the subject that YOU raised. If your point required clarification, perhaps it’s a shortcoming on your part. Because at least one other person here doesn’t understand why you raised the “influence” of Jesus within the context of this thread.
But by all means, I’m playing music for you, so dance.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
No. Because most theology is inherently exclusive to other doctrines. When we declare an engineering feat to be “correct” to bear a certain load and to have certain tolerances, there usually isn’t 3 other doctrines that claim it is not, and all having the same footing for being “true”.
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
If you don’t “get” the above, I’m losing confidence in your alleged intellectual prowess that you showed in the CA discussions.
I’m sorry this has to be explained to you, but I will anyway.
Your entire argument about the “popularity” of Christianity is fallacious. I was using Islam to ILLUSTRATE the falsity of the argument. Are you denying that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive? Because last I checked, Islam (among others) denies Jesus’ divinity.
I’m starting to believe you heavily plagiarized during the CA discussion or, you’re a one trick pony. Because your arguments here are underwhelming. That you do not see the Islam illustration is astounding to me. And for the record, I’m going to sleep in less than an hour and I won’t lose a moment of it worrying what you or “sloth” think about me. Stick to the discussion.
[/quote]
Your one to talk…Are you going to fly down to GA to kick my ass now??
We were talking about influence in history, how Jesus’s existence was the most influential of any single human on earth, then you denied it, but could produce a single example of someone more influential.
It doesn’t matter if you deny Jesus’s divinity, the influence of Jesus, via Christianity has changed the world, period. That was the point.
You move the target all around, change what you are talking about and accuse me of failing the logical rigidity test. What’s more then that you go and make up your own logical fallacies that don’t exist to describe something I didn’t say?
This is your own epic fail. But please don’t beat me up for it.[/quote]
You’re moving the target and I’ve responded, and I’ll respond again since you’re apparently stuck. Why did YOU raise the “influence” of Jesus within the context of this thread, if not to imply some form of validity?
I made up a logical fallacy? Appealing to Widespread Belief is not a fallacy? Why? Did you have a problem googling it to Latin or something?
[/quote]
I didn’t raise this topic. I merely responded. And I already responded to the validity in terms that I cannot prove divine nor divine inspiration. I simply said whether you believe it or not you cannot deny the influence of Christ, and that word was spread via the Bible. You said Jesus was not the most important influential person who ever lived, and then asked if you were receiving a grade when I asked if you knew somebody who was more. Assuming that if he wasn’t you knew who was…
I would never make a thread about you, or anybody else for that matter, so I am not sure what the fuck you are talking about. Your the one insulting and making threats around here, not me. You’re little ‘music’ comment is a perfect example, if it has any meaning what-so-ever…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
No. Because most theology is inherently exclusive to other doctrines. When we declare an engineering feat to be “correct” to bear a certain load and to have certain tolerances, there usually isn’t 3 other doctrines that claim it is not, and all having the same footing for being “true”. [/quote]
There are doctrines where that isn’t the case. But I was necessarily referring to an established religion.
Plus, there most certainly are competing and contradictory “doctrines” in science. In engineering, there are many times a multitude of different scientific theories that can be used to tackle a problem, much of the time yielding different results.
ESPECIALLY in mechanical loading. Most mechanical loading is modeled and simulated on the computer using FEA. There are a multitude of different algorithms you can run to do that with. And within that there are a multitude of things like mesh shapes and sizes that can be used. And yes, different methods can result in vastly different results. Even more so when you get into more complicated geometry and loading and dynamics.
If it were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. [/quote]
Starting here and much of what follows is another example of your apparent loss of the rigorous reason and logic you are quick to apply elsewhere.
I’m pretty sure you reject Islam, for instance. Yet the story of Muhammad, as one example, has every bit the impact and significance to his followers as your story has to you and yours. It’s another fallacious argument, a form of appeal to widespread belief and you can translate that to Latin if you’d like, but it’s fallacious nonetheless.
If the story of Muhammad were just a hoax, it’s really unlikely that the impact would have been nearly significant. Roughly 1.5 billion of the world’s population would agree with the latter, and reject your premise.
See how that works?
In before you claim I’m bashing Christianity and converted to Islam. In before you claim I’m attacking you or getting personal.
What I’m doing, is holding to you to the same standard you seek to hold others to when you engage in debate…when such rigorous standards suit you.[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?
For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.
I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]
If you don’t “get” the above, I’m losing confidence in your alleged intellectual prowess that you showed in the CA discussions.
I’m sorry this has to be explained to you, but I will anyway.
Your entire argument about the “popularity” of Christianity is fallacious. I was using Islam to ILLUSTRATE the falsity of the argument. Are you denying that Christianity and Islam are not mutually exclusive? Because last I checked, Islam (among others) denies Jesus’ divinity.
I’m starting to believe you heavily plagiarized during the CA discussion or, you’re a one trick pony. Because your arguments here are underwhelming. That you do not see the Islam illustration is astounding to me. And for the record, I’m going to sleep in less than an hour and I won’t lose a moment of it worrying what you or “sloth” think about me. Stick to the discussion.
[/quote]
Your one to talk…Are you going to fly down to GA to kick my ass now??
We were talking about influence in history, how Jesus’s existence was the most influential of any single human on earth, then you denied it, but could produce a single example of someone more influential.
It doesn’t matter if you deny Jesus’s divinity, the influence of Jesus, via Christianity has changed the world, period. That was the point.
You move the target all around, change what you are talking about and accuse me of failing the logical rigidity test. What’s more then that you go and make up your own logical fallacies that don’t exist to describe something I didn’t say?
This is your own epic fail. But please don’t beat me up for it.[/quote]
You’re moving the target and I’ve responded, and I’ll respond again since you’re apparently stuck. Why did YOU raise the “influence” of Jesus within the context of this thread, if not to imply some form of validity?
I made up a logical fallacy? Appealing to Widespread Belief is not a fallacy? Why? Did you have a problem googling it to Latin or something?
[/quote]
I didn’t raise this topic. I merely responded. And I already responded to the validity in terms that I cannot prove divine nor divine inspiration. I simply said whether you believe it or not you cannot deny the influence of Christ, and that word was spread via the Bible. You said Jesus was not the most important influential person who ever lived, and then asked if you were receiving a grade when I asked if you knew somebody who was more. Assuming that if he wasn’t you knew who was…
I would never make a thread about you, or anybody else for that matter, so I am not sure what the fuck you are talking about. Your the one insulting and making threats around here, not me. You’re little ‘music’ comment is a perfect example, if it has any meaning what-so-ever…[/quote]
I know this is difficult for you, but try to stay on topic. Your insults, veiled and otherwise are about as meaningful to me as the mosquito I just killed. And given that you know this is true, you must be showing off for your PWI friends. Not. A. Good. Look. for someone who fancies himself an intellectual.
So, back to topic. You admitted you cannot prove or disprove divine. Fine. Conceded here and agreed. And to reiterate, I answered your question now; The man called Jesus was NOT the most influential person ever. He directly influenced very few. So few in fact, that if you believe the biblical account, he was crucified. If you believe the biblical account, his followers were few. If you believe the biblical account, much of his own family rejected him. To be accurate, “the Church” had the influence you are attempting to ascribe to Jesus. Your question would be more accurately expressed in those terms. And under those terms, I’d be hard pressed to rebut the claim. “The Church” has indeed been very influential, and not all of it good. It’s been a very mixed bag. Given the “mixture” of influence, would it be fair to open this up to any influential body or person regardless of its or their works?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, what if a theology is applicable to the world in a useful way. Is it not then also true in that same sense?[/quote]
No. Because most theology is inherently exclusive to other doctrines. When we declare an engineering feat to be “correct” to bear a certain load and to have certain tolerances, there usually isn’t 3 other doctrines that claim it is not, and all having the same footing for being “true”. [/quote]
There are doctrines where that isn’t the case. But I was necessarily referring to an established religion.
Plus, there most certainly are competing and contradictory “doctrines” in science. In engineering, there are many times a multitude of different scientific theories that can be used to tackle a problem, much of the time yielding different results.
ESPECIALLY in mechanical loading. Most mechanical loading is modeled and simulated on the computer using FEA. There are a multitude of different algorithms you can run to do that with. And within that there are a multitude of things like mesh shapes and sizes that can be used. And yes, different methods can result in vastly different results. Even more so when you get into more complicated geometry and loading and dynamics.[/quote]
You’re reaching. Or, you’re misunderstanding my rebuttal or analogy. Just because there are “different tools in the toolbox” that will get the job done, does not mean using a different tool invalidates the tool not chosen. Religion however, is largely exclusive to other religions. The big 3 are all mutually exclusive to each other for instance. You cannot adhere to Islam, and claim Jesus divine; and you can run the foregoing “algebra” in any direction with the big 3 and you cannot get around it.
Instead of quibbling, why don’t you refine or clarify your original question; or was it rhetorical? And if it was the latter, why post it?
You’re reaching. Or, you’re misunderstanding my rebuttal or analogy. Just because there are “different tools in the toolbox” that will get the job done, does not mean using a different tool invalidates the tool not chosen. Religion however, is largely exclusive to other religions. The big 3 are all mutually exclusive to each other for instance. You cannot adhere to Islam, and claim Jesus divine; and you can run the foregoing “algebra” in any direction with the big 3 and you cannot get around it.
[/quote]
It is similar when those “tools” are entirely contradictory.
I think most of you think that science is much more exact than it is. There is a vast amount of estimation, truncation, and user manipulation in ANY real world application of science.
Complex analysis is as much reliant on the artful skill of the person doing it as it is the actual math. How to simplify geometry for the model, how to estimate and model loading, how to mesh the part and where to refine the mesh, are all as much art as science.
A horse is estimated as a circle, then simplified to and line which is approximated by a point.
Then you get into the inexactness of material properties, and corrosion over time and a million other factors.
You can literally be talking about margins of error larger than the result.
Which is why, in the real world, physics is never relied on for building anything, real world testing is. I think you grossly over estimate the abilities of science. Much of the time, science will say that X design will work perfectly, then it’s a complete failure in application.
That is really what I’ve been trying to get at in this thread. People invest faith and trust in a system of which they grossly overestimate it’s capabilities.