3 ms·

q.e.d. means in Latin quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". q.e.d. is used at the end of Philosophy (I was a Theology Student) argu

by baldfat 11y ago

q.e.d. means in Latin quod erat demonstrandum, meaning "which is what had to be proven". q.e.d. is used at the end of Philosophy (I was a Theology Student) arguments and in science. It seemed strange to see that used here on Hacker News and I have no idea what you were trying to say. I am asking what did you mean by q.e.d.? >The problem with christianity (or any religion, for that matter) is that it tends to encourage people to believe things for bad reasons. You have a strong bias against religion without data. To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it. The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious. This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism. > bible clearly tells them that they don't need to do anything because god will take care of it. There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-climate-science-410202 http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima...

jcoffland 11y ago
I think q.e.d. used in this sense means "look at me I'm smart."
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
> I am asking what did you mean by q.e.d.? I didn't mean anything by it, that comment wasn't mine. But the comment used it exactly as you defined it: 50CNT tried to show that the CDU is not christian by mentioning that they follow christian doctrine. Given that that is actually an argument for the position that the CDU is in fact christian, there is no need to provide any further arguments, k__ simply concluded: QED. > You have a strong bias against religion without data. How do you know what data I have? > To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it. Well, I can assure you that you are mistaken. > The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious. Your point being? > This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism. Could you please show where I made any such claim? Or was that an attempt to build a strawman argument? > There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima.. http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima.... You missed the point: I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that others care and try to justify their actions on that basis, which is irresponsible, as nobody has demonstrated that that is a way to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (plus there are plenty of examples to the contrary). That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information.
- baldfat 11y ago
  I am not trying to be mean or arguing as much as I want to have a dialog about what you communicated and what you mean which isn't the same thing normally. > How do you know what data I have? The old academic in me is you don't have any unless you show some. > I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that ... You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data. > That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information. Because people DON'T read the data and refuse to look at it. Just as frustrating is to see Excel spreadsheets of data from an original data set with no idea how they got to their conclusion. You are in one sentence just dismissed 90%+ of knowledge. Statistics, Science, all soft sciences etc.... And in fact this all comes back to data. Look at the data or walk away but don't argue from a point of ignorance and base it on personal experiences, belief systems, and emotions. Hope you have a good day and know I am not trying to get you to believe what I do but I am trying to encourage you to look at the way you are presenting yourself. I do believe you are trying to communicate A but you are being perceived to hold to B.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
    > You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data. First: "not caring" in this context means that I don't consider the content of the bible to be relevant to this argument, which is not to be confused with lack of knowledge, aka ignorance. Second: I very much care about the data. Now, do you have any data for me to look at? Now, to avoid any confusion, let me re-state my claim: The bible has not been demonstrated to be a reliable source of knowledge about the world. Therefore, it's irresponsible to make decisions about your or other people's lives based on information from the bible.
    - 11y ago

by baldfat 11y ago

jcoffland 11y ago

I think q.e.d. used in this sense means "look at me I'm smart."

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago

> I am asking what did you mean by q.e.d.? I didn't mean anything by it, that comment wasn't mine. But the comment used it exactly as you defined it: 50CNT tried to show that the CDU is not christian by mentioning that they follow christian doctrine. Given that that is actually an argument for the position that the CDU is in fact christian, there is no need to provide any further arguments, k__ simply concluded: QED. > You have a strong bias against religion without data. How do you know what data I have? > To me it just seems that you really don't care about religion and your reflecting your negative feelings on a subject and building a straw-man out of it. Well, I can assure you that you are mistaken. > The vast majority of the world and almost every person of historical significance were religious. Your point being? > This idea that religious people are lesser and clearly not enlightened isn't very different then racism. Could you please show where I made any such claim? Or was that an attempt to build a strawman argument? > There is no reference in the Bible for that and it isn't the basis of people's belief why they are against Global Warming (It is based on Conservative Pro-Business politics and not religion (In the US that is they identify as Republicans as they believe all good God Fearing Christians belong :( ) http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima.. http://www.ibtimes.com/what-do-christians-have-against-clima.... You missed the point: I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that others care and try to justify their actions on that basis, which is irresponsible, as nobody has demonstrated that that is a way to obtain reliable knowledge about the world (plus there are plenty of examples to the contrary). That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information.

baldfat 11y ago
I am not trying to be mean or arguing as much as I want to have a dialog about what you communicated and what you mean which isn't the same thing normally. > How do you know what data I have? The old academic in me is you don't have any unless you show some. > I don't care what the bible says on the topic (nor what specifically you think it says), but I notice that ... You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data. > That people claim equally loudly completely contradictory conclusions from their respective reading of the bible just is further evidence that it might not be that reliable a source of information. Because people DON'T read the data and refuse to look at it. Just as frustrating is to see Excel spreadsheets of data from an original data set with no idea how they got to their conclusion. You are in one sentence just dismissed 90%+ of knowledge. Statistics, Science, all soft sciences etc.... And in fact this all comes back to data. Look at the data or walk away but don't argue from a point of ignorance and base it on personal experiences, belief systems, and emotions. Hope you have a good day and know I am not trying to get you to believe what I do but I am trying to encourage you to look at the way you are presenting yourself. I do believe you are trying to communicate A but you are being perceived to hold to B.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 11y ago
  > You are claiming purposeful ignorance and insight on the same subject. If you don't care and then go one to make an argument which you have claimed no real knowledge about. Just don't get involved in discussions when you don't care about the data. First: "not caring" in this context means that I don't consider the content of the bible to be relevant to this argument, which is not to be confused with lack of knowledge, aka ignorance. Second: I very much care about the data. Now, do you have any data for me to look at? Now, to avoid any confusion, let me re-state my claim: The bible has not been demonstrated to be a reliable source of knowledge about the world. Therefore, it's irresponsible to make decisions about your or other people's lives based on information from the bible.
  - 11y ago