4 ms·

> > they derive their view that human dignity is worthy of protection as it is given by God > q.e.d. Why would you use q.e.d. with out a reference. I know I a

by baldfat 11y ago

> > they derive their view that human dignity is worthy of protection as it is given by God > q.e.d. Why would you use q.e.d. with out a reference. I know I am strange in that I studied Greek and know a decent amount of Latin but how were you using q.e.d.? Also can we please not lump ALL Christians into the same boat it feels kind of like calling all Muslims terrorist. For Global warming the Bible is very clear that we are to protect the Earth which many Bible Global Warming protesters claim to upheld.

dr_zoidberg 11y ago
"...quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation—and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration." from Wikipedia[0]. I've seen this kind of answer between computer engineering/sciences people as some sort of "you haven't explained anything" response, though in a more thorough reading of OP and response, I can't really say what was the intention. The downvotes on the response would seem to support that interpretation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.
cbd1984 11y ago
> the Bible is very clear Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The Bible is always very clear that I'm right and you're wrong. The traditionalist horror at postmodernism and poststructuralism is that they give the game away: They admit outright what the religious have always done sub rosa, that the meaning of a text is determined by its interpretive context and therefore all religious interpretations, like all artistic interpretations in general, are equally valid.
- baldfat 11y ago
  > The Bible is always very clear that I'm right and you're wrong. I have studied the Bible and other world religions for over a decade in higher education. Have multiple years of Greek and Hebrew education, and includes Aramaic, and Latin. I can tell you MOST people don't really care what the Bible says and most just care of how thy feel and/or think. Most things in history of Christianity have very little to do with what the Bible says. (I was working on a PhD in Historical Theology which is the nerdiest of focuses when it comes to Theology. If people ever want to have a discussion and are Christians it is hysterical to me to talk scripture with them and realize they will just twist something out of the air and consider themselves proven. In the exact terms of "Global Warming" which I was speaking about there are zero scriptures that supports the idea that it doesn't matter what people do or don't do with global warming but for those working to protect the earth it is in the Bible. So the funny thing is that these Christians are so strongly opposed to the science of Global Warming against the Bible they claim they are fighting scientist for.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
> Why would you use q.e.d. with out a reference. I know I am strange in that I studied Greek and know a decent amount of Latin but how were you using q.e.d.? The claim was that the CDU is somehow christian. The argument against that was that they aren't actually christian, but that they rather get inspiration for their politics from christian theology. Now, if your opponent presents an argument for your position as if it were for their own, there isn't really any need to restate that argument, you can simply point out that your position has been demonstrated. > Also can we please not lump ALL Christians into the same boat it feels kind of like calling all Muslims terrorist. For Global warming the Bible is very clear that we are to protect the Earth which many Bible Global Warming protesters claim to upheld. The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons. Now, there might be christians who don't, but that doesn't change that a vast majority of them do. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to lump them all together, at least in this regard, when making general statements. The problem is not whether some christians believe that the bible clearly tells them to protect the earth (while other christians ironically equally fervently believe that the bible clearly tells them that they don't need to do anything because god will take care of it), it's that they think that the bible telling them something is a good reason to act accordingly. That is an irresponsible method for trying to obtain knowledge, and it's outright dangerous when other people are affected by the results. If I feed a starving child because my horoscope told me that I should, then the fact that feeding a starving child is good does not change the fact that the reason why I do it is still bad, and that acting according to astrological advice is not a reliable way to do good, and might well lead to bad consequences in other cases.
- JackFr 11y ago
  > The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons. >...acting according to astrological advice is not a reliable way to do good, and might well lead to bad consequences in other cases. Something needs to inform your knowledge of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. Why do you take feeding a starving child as a good? It's likely that you've internalized a morality and ethics from your culture that tells you so. So what makes the externalized (religion) more wrong than the internalized (culture)?

by baldfat 11y ago

dr_zoidberg 11y ago

"...quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when what was specified in the enunciation—and in the setting-out—has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration." from Wikipedia[0]. I've seen this kind of answer between computer engineering/sciences people as some sort of "you haven't explained anything" response, though in a more thorough reading of OP and response, I can't really say what was the intention. The downvotes on the response would seem to support that interpretation. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

cbd1984 11y ago

> the Bible is very clear Well, that's just the problem, isn't it? The Bible is always very clear that I'm right and you're wrong. The traditionalist horror at postmodernism and poststructuralism is that they give the game away: They admit outright what the religious have always done sub rosa, that the meaning of a text is determined by its interpretive context and therefore all religious interpretations, like all artistic interpretations in general, are equally valid.

baldfat 11y ago
> The Bible is always very clear that I'm right and you're wrong. I have studied the Bible and other world religions for over a decade in higher education. Have multiple years of Greek and Hebrew education, and includes Aramaic, and Latin. I can tell you MOST people don't really care what the Bible says and most just care of how thy feel and/or think. Most things in history of Christianity have very little to do with what the Bible says. (I was working on a PhD in Historical Theology which is the nerdiest of focuses when it comes to Theology. If people ever want to have a discussion and are Christians it is hysterical to me to talk scripture with them and realize they will just twist something out of the air and consider themselves proven. In the exact terms of "Global Warming" which I was speaking about there are zero scriptures that supports the idea that it doesn't matter what people do or don't do with global warming but for those working to protect the earth it is in the Bible. So the funny thing is that these Christians are so strongly opposed to the science of Global Warming against the Bible they claim they are fighting scientist for.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago

> Why would you use q.e.d. with out a reference. I know I am strange in that I studied Greek and know a decent amount of Latin but how were you using q.e.d.? The claim was that the CDU is somehow christian. The argument against that was that they aren't actually christian, but that they rather get inspiration for their politics from christian theology. Now, if your opponent presents an argument for your position as if it were for their own, there isn't really any need to restate that argument, you can simply point out that your position has been demonstrated. > Also can we please not lump ALL Christians into the same boat it feels kind of like calling all Muslims terrorist. For Global warming the Bible is very clear that we are to protect the Earth which many Bible Global Warming protesters claim to upheld. The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons. Now, there might be christians who don't, but that doesn't change that a vast majority of them do. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to lump them all together, at least in this regard, when making general statements. The problem is not whether some christians believe that the bible clearly tells them to protect the earth (while other christians ironically equally fervently believe that the bible clearly tells them that they don't need to do anything because god will take care of it), it's that they think that the bible telling them something is a good reason to act accordingly. That is an irresponsible method for trying to obtain knowledge, and it's outright dangerous when other people are affected by the results. If I feed a starving child because my horoscope told me that I should, then the fact that feeding a starving child is good does not change the fact that the reason why I do it is still bad, and that acting according to astrological advice is not a reliable way to do good, and might well lead to bad consequences in other cases.

JackFr 11y ago
> The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons. >...acting according to astrological advice is not a reliable way to do good, and might well lead to bad consequences in other cases. Something needs to inform your knowledge of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. Why do you take feeding a starving child as a good? It's likely that you've internalized a morality and ethics from your culture that tells you so. So what makes the externalized (religion) more wrong than the internalized (culture)?