Florida church to hold 9/11 Quaran burnings

Yeah, no. I only have faith in things I can trust, and I only trust things that can be proven.

Lapin wrote:

Yeah, no. I only have faith in things I can trust, and I only trust things that can be proven.

Then you can't trust gravity, conservation of energy, relativity, evolution, anything really. Nothing is ever truly proven, it's just not been proven wrong enough yet.

Also. A definition of Faith for you

And quoting for emphasis.

Quote :

2. Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

So yeah, if you can prove it, it ain't faith, we have a different word for that. Knowing.

HAHA LAPIN THE DICTIONARY TRUMPS ALL

THUS SPAKE SOMATH CEGEM

DICTIONARY

Cyberwulf wrote:

HAHA LAPIN THE DICTIONARY TRUMPS ALL

THUS SPAKE SOMATH CEGEM

DICTIONARY

I am aware of the irony thank you, all caps were not required.

Somath, it's nonsense to quote the dictionary definition of faith when you are talking about theism versus atheism. That's the kind of thing Psy-4 would do, and you don't want to be like him...do you?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Somath, it's nonsense to quote the dictionary definition of faith when you are talking about theism versus atheism. That's the kind of thing Psy-4 would do, and you don't want to be like him...do you?

All I was doing was correcting her miss use of the word Faith and backing it up with evidence to support my claim of her misuse, acting like Psy-4 was not my intention. My stance on theism versus atheism is, as I've stated before, that it is pointless and unprovable.
It's basically a religious argument but one side have no faith in anything instead of in a differing deity or interpretation of the same deity. Same song, different instruments.

But the difference between the existence of God (or Gods) and the existence of

Quote :

gravity, conservation of energy, relativity, evolution,

is that these things are either observable phenomena or there's some evidence to back them up as at least possibilities.

Quote :

Nothing is ever truly proven

Okay, now you're being silly. I'll be the first to admit that scientific theories change (the structure of the atom is a big one) over time, and some of them (like string theory) involve a lot of handwaving. But some things are truly proven. The Earth is round, for instance.

TheHermit wrote:

delusion wrote:

–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry . a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Since it seems tossing this word around is going to be a "thing" I figured bringing up a definition would be useful.

Oh, and no sidestepping the issue by saying nothing matters because we can't be sure if it's real. You can certainly say, "Oh, everything is a delusion and nothing is real", but calling the physical world a delusion doesn't stop its effects on you.

Delusions are by definition mental responses and have no correlation with the physical world. The real world can't be a delusion any more than it can be a belief or a phobia. Maybe I should have written 'every belief or thought or no belief or thought' instead of 'everything or nothing' just to make that clear, but since all delusions are beliefs or thoughts anyway it seemed unecessary.

Psy-4 wrote:

Because people tend to act on their delusions, and there is a big difference between detonating forty pounds of explosives strapped to your chest, and saving a girl from a fire.

Unless they don't, in which case you might never know about it. Once people start to act on delusions then you can stop judging them on said delusions and judge them on their deeds instead.

Cyberwulf wrote:

But the difference between the existence of God (or Gods) and the existence of

Quote :

gravity, conservation of energy, relativity, evolution,

is that these things are either observable phenomena or there's some evidence to back them up as at least possibilities.

Quote :

Nothing is ever truly proven

Okay, now you're being silly. I'll be the first to admit that scientific theories change (the structure of the atom is a big one) over time, and some of them (like string theory) involve a lot of handwaving. But some things are truly proven. The Earth is round, for instance.

I know it's silly, but that's how science works, it's not "We have proven that this is how is happens" it's more "This is the theory that makes the most sense atm, get back to us in a few years" It sounded really stupid to me at first to but it's how it works. There is no such thing as a proven theory, it took me 4 years to accept this fact, the fact you can't right now is pretty much understandable.

Quote :

I know it's silly, but that's how science works

You're now trying to explain science to a scientist.

Quote :

There is no such thing as a proven theory

That's because once something is proven, it's a fact.

And that's not what you said or what I said. You said, "Nothing is ever truly proven". That statement is untrue.

Sutremaine wrote:

Unless they don't, in which case you might never know about it.

Or they might share them before acting, in which case...

Sutremaine wrote:

Once people start to act on delusions then you can stop judging them on said delusions and judge them on their deeds instead.

...I prefer to be ahead of the curve.

Note: judgment based on deeds = 10 * judgment based on beliefs.

The theories of evolution, gravity, etc., are not theories in the way the public thinks of theories. They are not guesses. They are backed by great big massive amounts of evidence.

Gods, however, cannot be given any real evidence. There is no evidence. There isn't anything beyond blind faith in old texts written by people who couldn't explain anything so they decided it must be deities.

That's not enough for me to put any kind of faith in.

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

You have an irrational belief in the non-existence of God(s) and believe that everyone who disagrees with you is delusional. The rational stance is to say that it is impossible to know either way.

Special pleading. In every other case in our lives, we do not accept a positive claim merely because there is no evidence it is wrong; there must be at least some evidence it is true. If you accept an idea as true simply because there's no evidence against it, why don't you believe in unicorns, leprechauns, and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter? The answer is that you don't; you offer this exclusive right to religion, and there is no compelling reason why it should be granted such clemency.

Where was I accepting it as true? Besides, unlike unicorns, leprechauns and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter, where you should be able to find evidence, finding evidence of God is pretty much impossible. That's why you don't rule it out either.

As for scientific theories, well yes, they have to be backed up by massive amounts of evidence in order to be accepted, but they are really just our best understanding of the available evidence. This, however, doesn't mean that nothing can truly be proven. It is a principle that applies to science rather than an absolute fact.

Anon wrote:

Besides, unlike unicorns, leprechauns and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter, where you should be able to find evidence, finding evidence of God is pretty much impossible.

Unsupported assertion, and one that's easily proven false. Pretty much every god I've ever heard of is able to enact his will on the physical world, the one we live in. Since it has effects on this world, evidence of this tampering should be visible. Except when we take measurements and control variables, we find the world always works exactly the way we would expect it to if no god were interfering in the results. This is the entire reason science works; if a god could make any object ignore the laws of gravity on a whim at any time, every model of physics we have would quickly fall apart. That this does not happen, ever, is strong evidence that gods do not exist.

Quote :

As for scientific theories, well yes, they have to be backed up by massive amounts of evidence in order to be accepted, but they are really just our best understanding of the available evidence. This, however, doesn't mean that nothing can truly be proven. It is a principle that applies to science rather than an absolute fact.

If we assumed scientific theories were 100% true and could never be called into question, it would be a religion. Science being not only able but willing to challenge it's most ardent beliefs it it's greatest strength, not a weakness as you seem to imply. But I can tell you two things I am certain of; outside of very simple systems with rigidly defined rules and a limited number of variables (such as a logic puzzle), it is not possible to be absolutely 100% certain of anything. This observation does not make the things we are 99.999% certain of any less meaningful.

saeku wrote:

No, we mock it. Which is different than setting things on fire.

The differences are pretty much semantic. You can mock something, complain about it, set a copy of it on fire... they're all ways of saying "this is dumb/wrong/stupid/a boatload of suck," etc. Really, if it weren't for the historical stigma of barbarians burning entire libraries, Nazis using organized book burning as a method of censorship, and so on, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Plenty of forms of expression can be abused. If you saw a Klan march, for example, would you argue against what they're saying, or against the whole idea of public demonstration in general? Did anyone here think that the proposed constitutional amendment against flag burning was a pretty neat idea?

Penguin wrote:

saeku wrote:

No, we mock it. Which is different than setting things on fire.

The differences are pretty much semantic. You can mock something, complain about it, set a copy of it on fire... they're all ways of saying "this is dumb/wrong/stupid/a boatload of suck," etc. Really, if it weren't for the historical stigma of barbarians burning entire libraries, Nazis using organized book burning as a method of censorship, and so on, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Except that historically, book-burning has served as a suppression of information, or as a public act of terrorism, sometimes state-sponsored. It's not a form of expression that is necessarily equivalent to marching or picketing. The Nazis, to use your example, burned books to both suppress information and to make those watching the burning understand clearly that the Nazi regime would not tolerate those books and the ideas they contained, so if you owned a copy, watch out. It was meant to bolster supporters and discourage potential rebels. Same thing with the Spanish conquistadors burning Aztec writings and holy books: it sent the message that a new regime and religion was in town, so preserve or read these pagan texts at your peril.

Granted, this church burning these Qurans isn't going to suppress information, but that's only because of the wide-spread availability of information today, and because this church isn't in any sort of position of major power. In past times, this burning would have had a much different outcome.

Quote :

Plenty of forms of expression can be abused. If you saw a Klan march, for example, would you argue against what they're saying, or against the whole idea of public demonstration in general? Did anyone here think that the proposed constitutional amendment against flag burning was a pretty neat idea?

No. I think that flag-burning should be legal, as should book-burning. I think that this church should have the legal right to do this half-assed protest. But at the same time, I find it morally repugnant, shallow-minded, and offensive to the very cause they claim to stand for (that is, the cause of Christ and the Gospel).

Also, to use your above example of the Klan, this church isn't just arguing against what the Quran says, they're burning it. Which is a bit stronger than just saying "The Quran is wrong according to Christian beliefs, here's why."

Malganis wrote:

Except that historically, book-burning has served as a suppression of information, or as a public act of terrorism, sometimes state-sponsored.

You see, this is where your argument jumps the rails; obviously it served to suppress information, but when not backed by the force of authority, it becomes a private act. When the government policy is to burn books, shit has officially gotten real. When it's just these crackpots doing it, not so much. The context changes the message.

Malganis wrote:

It's not a form of expression that is necessarily equivalent to marching or picketing. The Nazis, to use your example, burned books to both suppress information and to make those watching the burning understand clearly that the Nazi regime would not tolerate those books and the ideas they contained, so if you owned a copy, watch out.

Again, these assholes have no force or authority, so "watch out" becomes an empty threat when implied, and an actionable one if actually delivered. You're conflating "assholes being assholes" with "organized government suppression."

Malganis wrote:

Same thing with the Spanish conquistadors burning Aztec writings and holy books: it sent the message that a new regime and religion was in town, so preserve or read these pagan texts at your peril.

Well, that and they found an IRL Khornate cult abhorrent, but that's neither here nor there.

Malganis wrote:

No. I think that flag-burning should be legal, as should book-burning. I think that this church should have the legal right to do this half-assed protest. But at the same time, I find it morally repugnant, shallow-minded, and offensive to the very cause they claim to stand for (that is, the cause of Christ and the Gospel).

So what's the actual point of disagreement?

gaijinguy wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Except that historically, book-burning has served as a suppression of information, or as a public act of terrorism, sometimes state-sponsored.

You see, this is where your argument jumps the rails; obviously it served to suppress information, but when not backed by the force of authority, it becomes a private act. When the government policy is to burn books, shit has officially gotten real. When it's just these crackpots doing it, not so much. The context changes the message.

Authority is important to suppress information, that's pretty clear. But in this modern environment? It's damn near impossible.

I'd still label it a public act of social terrorism. Burning something in public is a damn hostile sign regardless of what it is. Burning Cross, Burning effigy, burning books--done en mass and in a group is a large sign of "We don't like X and will do stuff about it."

Depending on what that stuff is, that can be pretty damn scary.

Quote :

Again, these assholes have no force or authority, so "watch out" becomes an empty threat when implied, and an actionable one if actually delivered. You're conflating "assholes being assholes" with "organized government suppression."

Because small groups of motivated individuals have never harmed anyone, right? It's not like people with similar mind-sets are into anti-government militia movements or anything...

TheHermit wrote:

Anon wrote:

Besides, unlike unicorns, leprechauns and an elegantly crafted teapot orbiting Jupiter, where you should be able to find evidence, finding evidence of God is pretty much impossible.

Unsupported assertion, and one that's easily proven false. Pretty much every god I've ever heard of is able to enact his will on the physical world, the one we live in. Since it has effects on this world, evidence of this tampering should be visible. Except when we take measurements and control variables, we find the world always works exactly the way we would expect it to if no god were interfering in the results. This is the entire reason science works; if a god could make any object ignore the laws of gravity on a whim at any time, every model of physics we have would quickly fall apart. That this does not happen, ever, is strong evidence that gods do not exist.

I hate to tell you this but absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence. In the case of leprechauns, unicorns and the like, we operate on the assumption that they don't exist as a part of our universe because what we can observe about the universe tells us that their existence is impossible. The problem with a god or gods is that most religions believe that their deity/ies created the universe and therefore quite literally cannot exist as a part of it, even if there was an objective definition of what a god is. God is supposed to exist externally to the universe we experience and therefore there is no way to draw up assumptions on whether or not it can exist. For example, we have no way of telling if the universe we experience is just some sort of simulation that some higher being just set up and left to run in order to see what would happen.

Quote :

Quote :

As for scientific theories, well yes, they have to be backed up by massive amounts of evidence in order to be accepted, but they are really just our best understanding of the available evidence. This, however, doesn't mean that nothing can truly be proven. It is a principle that applies to science rather than an absolute fact.

If we assumed scientific theories were 100% true and could never be called into question, it would be a religion. Science being not only able but willing to challenge it's most ardent beliefs it it's greatest strength, not a weakness as you seem to imply. But I can tell you two things I am certain of; outside of very simple systems with rigidly defined rules and a limited number of variables (such as a logic puzzle), it is not possible to be absolutely 100% certain of anything. This observation does not make the things we are 99.999% certain of any less meaningful.

Did I really imply it was a weakness? I didn't mean to. However to say that we cannot ever truly prove anything still isn't true. There are fields within mathematics, for example, where it is entirely false.

Majin Gojira wrote:

Authority is important to suppress information, that's pretty clear. But in this modern environment? It's damn near impossible.

I'd still label it a public act of social terrorism. Burning something in public is a damn hostile sign regardless of what it is. Burning Cross, Burning effigy, burning books-

Burning flags, perchance?

Majin Gojira wrote:

-done en mass and in a group is a large sign of "We don't like X and will do stuff about it."

And if they do illegal stuff about it, that's when you take them to court and get the book thrown at them.

Majin Gojira wrote:

Depending on what that stuff is, that can be pretty damn scary.

So, what, choke off people's right to protest on the grounds that someone might interpret that protest as the adoption of some vague threatening posture?

Majin Gojira wrote:

Because small groups of motivated individuals have never harmed anyone, right?

If they've actually harmed someone, that's a different matter. If all they're doing is protesting (in a douchebaggy way) let them. Talk is cheap.

Majin Gojira wrote:

It's not like people with similar mind-sets are into anti-government militia movements or anything...

wai2stereotype.

gaijinguy wrote:

And if they do illegal stuff about it, that's when you take them to court and get the book thrown at them.

Indeed. However, this form of protest is kind of like painting a giant neon sign over your head, reading "Monitor for possible future illegal/rights violating activities."

Because it only takes one, and with a Democrat in office, Extreme Right Wing Terrorism has returned.

Majin Gojira wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

And if they do illegal stuff about it, that's when you take them to court and get the book thrown at them.

Indeed. However, this form of protest is kind of like painting a giant neon sign over your head, reading "Monitor for possible future illegal/rights violating activities."

Obviously law enforcement agencies should exercise their own judgment when keeping an eye on potential troublemakers. However, we currently lack a Department of Pre-Crime, so waiting for an actual crime will have to suffice.

Majin Gojira wrote:

Because it only takes one, and with a Democrat in office, Extreme Right Wing Terrorism has returned.

OK, where's the tinfoil hat smilie?

gaijinguy wrote:

Majin Gojira wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

And if they do illegal stuff about it, that's when you take them to court and get the book thrown at them.

Indeed. However, this form of protest is kind of like painting a giant neon sign over your head, reading "Monitor for possible future illegal/rights violating activities."

Obviously law enforcement agencies should exercise their own judgment when keeping an eye on potential troublemakers. However, we currently lack a Department of Pre-Crime, so waiting for an actual crime will have to suffice.

Which Homeland Security took note of over a year ago. And then...

Quote :

OK, where's the tinfoil hat smilie?

Eh, like Terrorism in the US is that common to begin with. It's certainly rare, but it happens often enough to pretty much/almost take the majority. 4 of 14 attacks from 2008 to 2010. thus managing to get the highest group total; followed by the Earth Liberation Front/Animal rights wackaloons with 3, and 2 from suspected Islamic Fundamentalists (ending in spectacular failure), 2 unsolved (but connected) bombings (one is at the University of Santa Cruz, so the ELF people might have "won" the numbers game here), 2 computer hacking attempts suspected to originate from foreign powers and 1 anarchist teenager suspected of trying to emulate the ending of Fight Club.

But hell, I just checked wikipedia, I could be totally off base with my numbers.

Majin Gojira wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

Majin Gojira wrote:

gaijinguy wrote:

And if they do illegal stuff about it, that's when you take them to court and get the book thrown at them.

Indeed. However, this form of protest is kind of like painting a giant neon sign over your head, reading "Monitor for possible future illegal/rights violating activities."

Obviously law enforcement agencies should exercise their own judgment when keeping an eye on potential troublemakers. However, we currently lack a Department of Pre-Crime, so waiting for an actual crime will have to suffice.

Which Homeland Security took note of over a year ago. And then...

That DHS report is a freaking joke. The definition of "right-wing extremism" in it could be re-written as "any libertarian or conservative in the US." And since that's about 50% of the country, and we know for a fact that there are not 150,000,000 "extremists" in the United States...

The only thing that report proved is that the DHS needed to work much harder on defining who they were looking for, because that report was not one that inspired much confidence.