Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Robaggio
Actually, moral self-dicipline refers to the removal of morals from one's self. It's the self dicipline to temporarilly forget about morals in order to have a conversation devoid of their presense. Failure to do this results in endless conflict. For example:
Person A says: I believe abortion is wrong.
Person B says: I believe abortion is right.
The result is nothing. Nothing is established past the fact that two people disagree. It's only when morals are truly removed does true philosophical discussion begin. The goal is to talk about abortion- not what you think about it, not what I think about it, and certainly not what god thinks about it. It should be noted that I have never said in my posts "I believe" in reference to something I personally hold to myself. The points I've made were based on observations, not beliefs. You cannot use belief to refute observation, only more observation can do that. The only observation Beatlefan58 has made is that 'life is a miracle'- and this itself isn't an observation about life/abortion even, it's an observation he's made about his beliefs on god. You pointed it out yourself even, emprical data cannot be refuted by theoretical data. (religion is theology...)
Where does this leave us? Well, nowhere really. He's arguing his case from his beliefs and I'm pointing out observations. It isn't my fault he's trying to refute observations with theology. I set up the scenario and he's trying to take it down through completely unrelated means.
"Note Science and Liberal Arts, LA curriculums often involve the study of many forms of beliefs from Nihilism to the Bible to the Greek gods."
What's your point here? Science is merely studying people's religion, or rather, the fact that people believe in a particular religion. You certainly don't see science trying to prove/disprove Zeus' existence. Science is merely making the observation that some people believed in him. (On a side note, I read an article that said some people still believe in Zeus and co! Isn't that crazy? I'll try to dig it up, it's very interesting.)
|
Interesting but wrong, observations are subjective and fundamentally flawed everyone sees what they want to see. What you see, hear, feel, touch and smell are all subjective and theoretically speaking have no necessary correlation to life. As in you BELIEVE what your senses tell you.
Person A: There are 3 apples on the table
Person B: There are 4 apples on the table
* for all it matters in reality there could be 1 million apples on the table
Think about it you say that the existence of god can not be proven and beliefs shouldn’t be included. However, can you prove to me that you exist, the fact that you exist is my belief does that mean you can’t be in my argument. Science is great I believe in it, but NOTHING I repeat NOTHING can be proven with certainty, which means you have to have a certain degree of belief in everything.
*When I say nothing can be proven it is misleading, you yourself exist and it requires no proof it is a given (if you remember high school geometry).
----------
Philosophy is the study of nature and etc. through the use of logic without empirical evidence.
Logic is a system of reason.
Reason is a logical way of thought.(see a paradox)- look up the definitions if you don’t trust me.