imaginaryme
Active Member
Case in point, yer honor.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationism in the Classroom - Research Project
- Thread starter DaisyRach
- Start date
Except for the fact that both opposites (true and untrue) are subjective.
It's only senseless if subjectivity didn't exist.
Of course not. The example you gave is an objective event. If it's raining, it's raining, and no one can dispute it rationally.
You can't apply a subjective term to an objective event.
A better example would be:
"Drat! It's raining!"
"I like the rain."
"Speak for yourself. I'm carrying library books. If they get ruined by the rain, I'll have to pay a fine."
"I'm not carrying anything valueable, so getting wet isn't a problem for me."
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Is this thread still about creationism in the classroom?
At any rate, I liked the rain anaology. Seems perfectly sound to me.
At any rate, I liked the rain anaology. Seems perfectly sound to me.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
The original can be disputed rationaly.
As I said it is a question of context.
They may have been speaking on the phone.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
post 88:
I'll dispute it.
2+2=4 is mathematics. In the real world, however; addition is actually algebra - one must combine like terms. Two apples plus two oranges equals two apples plus two oranges, unless a new variable is added, then one can say, four fruit.
Truth is philosophy, facts are for Congressional Committees; and Creationism is folklore.
In what context does 2 + 2 not equal 4?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Those are opinions, which are entirely different from truths. Some statements are true. We call them truths. Some are false. We call them falsehoods. Some are subjective; they are neither true nor false.
In other words, we agree that there is such a thing as objective truth, or close enough to ordinary purposes.
Someone might say, "Well, more of the air is not-rain than rain, so it is both raining and not-raining," or something. But for ordinary human purposes, rain is either falling or it's not.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
As I said the explanation, suitable for 6 year olds, is in post 88.
post 88:
I'll dispute it.
2+2=4 is mathematics. In the real world, however; addition is actually algebra - one must combine like terms. Two apples plus two oranges equals two apples plus two oranges, unless a new variable is added, then one can say, four fruit.
Truth is philosophy, facts are for Congressional Committees; and Creationism is folklore.
In case you missed it the answer is in RED.
__________________
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, Terry, I didn't miss it, but it doesn't answer the question. The fact that 2x + 2y = 4z does not show that 2x + 2x = 4x.
In other words, 2 + 2 is always 4, in all countries, languages and religions. That's how math works.
Humanistheart
Well-Known Member
Terry doesn't seam to like to give real answers.
Does the math relate back to why creationism isn't (and shouldn't) be allowed in the classrooms?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is clear that you do not understand how context alters statements both in Maths and english... so I willl not waste any more time. I suspect you have trouble with lateral thinking too.
imaginaryme
Active Member
It's funny how people turn apples and oranges into xes and ys to make a pointless point. There ain't no 2 in the real world, ain't no four. They are symbolic operators for the specific language of mathematics. They are used for ordering (like a street address), for uniqueness (like a phone number or SSN); but in themselves are abstract. And here in AZ one can see the rain coming. It's entirely plausible to have two people side by side, with one getting rained on, on not. The point is, there ain't no point. 
Sure, math relates. It's obvious we need more math and less Creationism. Kidding. But teaching Creationism to impressionable young minds, especially when there is a greater society around them espousing Creationism for their own ends, is not a good idea.
Sure, math relates. It's obvious we need more math and less Creationism. Kidding. But teaching Creationism to impressionable young minds, especially when there is a greater society around them espousing Creationism for their own ends, is not a good idea.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
Ok, let me try it differently then. i think you didnt get my point.
Lets suppose that as you state truth and untruth is subjective. If so then there exist no absolute truth and no absolute untruth.
"I exist" then (i guess) you would call a fact and not a truth?
My claim now is actually very simple.
If it were as you stated then all things were at the same time truth and untruth, for all "neutral" observers. And of course it would mean that eac hone of us while perhaps thinking something to be true would at the same time have to consider that it actiually IS untrue at the same time.
my claim: If that is so, then the terms truth and untruth do not make any sense.
generally people associate some kind of "absoluteness" with a true statement.
ThereIsNoSpoon
Active Member
I do not know if you know the quarrel between the absolutionist and the relativationist.
A) All is absolute
B) All is relative
A) No there are things that are absolute
B) NO there are no such things !
A) Are you sure ?
B) ABSOLUTELY !
A) All is absolute
B) All is relative
A) No there are things that are absolute
B) NO there are no such things !
A) Are you sure ?
B) ABSOLUTELY !
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
And yet mathematics govern the operation of the universe. Math has been called the only universal truth. While it's true that there is no physical number two next to that pair of apples, there really are two apples, and if i count them alongside two oranges i have four fruit.It's funny how people turn apples and oranges into xes and ys to make a pointless point. There ain't no 2 in the real world, ain't no four. They are symbolic operators for the specific language of mathematics. They are used for ordering (like a street address), for uniqueness (like a phone number or SSN); but in themselves are abstract. And here in AZ one can see the rain coming. It's entirely plausible to have two people side by side, with one getting rained on, on not. The point is, there ain't no point.
Sure, math relates. It's obvious we need more math and less Creationism. Kidding. But teaching Creationism to impressionable young minds, especially when there is a greater society around them espousing Creationism for their own ends, is not a good idea.
Don't try to lecture me on lateral thinking, my friends. I'm a software engineer. Abstract concepts is all i do for a living.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Creationism, anyway you look at it, is a religious concept that does not have any scientific backing, and does not belong in a science class. If you teach a religious class, then go ahead and teach it.
Those are called facts.
An "absolute truth" already has a term in English: fact.
As for your "I" argument, that still may not be a fact, because there are those who will argue that "self" doesn't really exist at all, but is an illusion.
I do not know if you know the quarrel between the absolutionist and the relativationist.
A) All is absolute
B) All is relative
A) No there are things that are absolute
B) NO there are no such things !
A) Are you sure ?
B) ABSOLUTELY !
Both sides take extremistic viewpoints. My view is that some things are absolute, some things are relative. This is a truth, as I see it in the world. However, it is not a fact because others see different things.
DaisyRach
New Member
fantôme profane;1748202 said:
I know this is a very late reply. But I'm actually doing the research in the UK - where it is not outlawed, in fact apart from the National Curriculum guidelines which say 'there is no offical guidelines for teaching creationism' then there is no yes or no answer.