Harry Potter is awful and you suck for liking it.

[Mehmani]

Really? I'm not accusing you of doing it, but I've had people straight up call me a moron for questioning anything even remotely science-related instead merely explaining or arguing it. I don't think everyone actually practices that scrutiny to it's fullest intent.

 

In Science, we have hypotheses and theories. A hypothesis is an idea that has not yet been proved. A theory is a hypothesis that due to a large body of irrefutable, rigorously tested and assembled proof is considered to be correct. People have probably called you a moron for attacking something that is irrefutably correct - I mean, would you call someone a moron if they tried to disprove Relativity or the Laws of Thermodynamics? Unless something really is still unexplained (unlike Darwin's Theory of Evolution, which as the earlier definition clarified, is scientific fact) or there is a genuine cause for scrutiny (like the LHC) then it is stupid to challenge it. It's like a schoolchild trying to disprove Pythagoras.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

"Instruction in the scientific method, in particular, cannot properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and sceptical scrutiny of one's own ideas, a stance outside any doctrine."

 

That our critical and skeptical treatment of the ideas presented before us is ideal is a belief. It is a belief that is imposed upon us and that we are punished for rejecting. When we start treating criticism and skepticism critically and skeptically, we find that science isn't free from doctrine at all, but rather is dependent on it in the same way that religion is. The exclusivity of the "stance" held by "the fundamental principles of science" does not change that they are a doctrine. I took the liberty of omitting your quote from the Wikipedia entry it originated from because it was biased, false, and irrelevant to the article.

 

When I was told as a child that God could hear all my dissenting thoughts, that terrified me. I had no freedom, it was all an illusion.

 

You can only act to serve your beliefs. If you didn't think something needed to be done then you wouldn't do it, and your beliefs dictate what you think needs to be done. You have no more freedom in believing in science's ideals than you had in believing that God was terrifying, as all beliefs restrict your freedom by causing you to act based on their implications. There isn't anything inherently wrong with this as freedom has no purpose but to empower beliefs and the merits behind beliefs are independent of their depletion of freedom, as all beliefs are conduits through which freedom is channeled.

[Mehmani]

That our critical and skeptical treatment of the ideas presented before us is ideal is a belief. It is a belief that is imposed upon us and that we are punished for rejecting. When we start treating criticism and skepticism critically and skeptically, we find that science isn't free from doctrine at all, but rather is dependent on it in the same way that religion is. The exclusivity of the "stance" held by "the fundamental principles of science" does not change that they are a doctrine. I took the liberty of omitting your quote from the Wikipedia entry it originated from because it was biased, false, and irrelevant to the article.

 

So you believe that we should be sceptical about scepticism because scepticism is bad. That's extraordindarily hypocritical. Science is free from dogma as any scientific idea can be challenged. To give an example, altruism was once considered an inate part of the human psyche and was until very recently, when an enterprising Professor managed to disprove that notion through some excellently clever criticisms and updated experiments he had written and performed. Science is a continuously evolving beast...oh wait, I forgot, you don't like that word. It's probably quite likely that in a couple of hundred years, many scientific ideas we use today could be found to be flawed. Newton's Gravitational Theory was usurped by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, "Hawking Radiation" got rid of the notion that black holes were eternal and leading on to our next point, Lamarck's Theory of Artificial Selection was usurped by Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection.

 

When Darwin published his work, as you can imagine it was subject to a combination of intense scrutiny and moral indignation. All of the factual, viable criticism came from other scientists of the time, the vast majority of whom thought Darwin was wrong and set out to prove it, via the method you hate yet think we should use (paradoxical?) - publishing detailed criticisms in journals. Now, Darwin's Theory was not popular. It went against religion, and practically everyone at that time was religious, including scientists. All the fantastically written criticisms and attempts at disproof failed. Had they succeeded (and should a perfect disproof and in turn an alternative, better theory of life than Darwin's Theory of Evolution ever arise) I would or will not think that Evolution is scientific fact. Darwin's theory survived a huge amount of criticism (not so the creator of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, who eventually died impoverished and insane, along with the first advocate of disinfectant, Semmelweis, who died penniless in an asylum, due to the fact that people were unwilling to accept that they were right all along) and now remains the best theory for the explanation of all life of Earth, because it has not collapsed after over a century of criticism. And people who are religious nowadays don't suffer social exclusion unless they impose on themselves by prosletyzing or shouting about demons. Religious bigotry is accepted in society as a "cultural product", while banging on (equally stupidly, I might add) about eugenics results in far more scrutiny. And before I finish, you go on in your second paragraph about "acting only to serve your beliefs". So tell me, what was the purpose of removing a perfectly relevant quote explaining the difference between scientific method/fact and religious indoctrination? You say that it's biased and irrelevant. I don't think it is, and obviously the admins at Wikipedia don't think it is either. So you removed a quote generally judged to be relevant by a large consensus based on your religious beliefs. That's biased, isn't it not? You edit an article because you disagree with it, and thereby affect everyone in the future who reads it, altering their perspective to fit your personal beliefs. That's not helping your argument at all.

 

 

You can only act to serve your beliefs. If you didn't think something needed to be done then you wouldn't do it, and your beliefs dictate what you think needs to be done. You have no more freedom in believing in science's ideals than you had in believing that God was terrifying, as all beliefs restrict your freedom by causing you to act based on their implications. The fact that people judge everything based on their personal principles, morals and beliefs in obvious, but so is the fact that some beliefs are a lot more limiting than others. You are basically saying that every belief is equally limited, which is completely and utterly wrong, in no uncertain terms. Comparing my former Catholicism to my current lack of faith is just wrong. If I still believed that God could read my mind then I wouldn't drink, masturbate or take drugs. I wouldn't indulge any homosexual tendencies, I wouldn't eat meat on a Friday, I wouldn't tolerate anyone telling me I am wrong and I would defend the Church and its prinicples at all costs. As someone without faith, I now happily do all those things. Someone with no religion has a lot more freedom than a religious person, especially if they are a woman. Their faith limits and prohibits a lot of things, that's undeniable. An Orthodox Jew can't use transport on the Sabbath. A Muslim can't drink or eat pork. A Jehovah's Witness refuses blood transfusions. Someone with no faith can do all of those unless they choose not to (while the difference with religion is that you can't choose).There isn't anything inherently wrong with this as freedom has no purpose but to empower beliefs and the merits behind beliefs are independent of their depletion of freedom, as all beliefs are conduits through which freedom is channeled.

A lot of irrelevant big words there, disguising the fact that it's entirely your opinion and unfactual. There is a particular density of "big-words-to-sound-smart-syndrome" in your final sentence (there are two phrases to describe "big-words-to-sound-smart-syndrome", they are "sesquipedalian loquaciousness" and "grandliloquence" [NOT SO SUBTLE IRONY THERE]. I prefer BWTSSS because it's not as ironic and everyone can understand it), where you basically say freedom has no purpose as freedom comes from belief itself. Yes, apparentally being free is all about sticking to a personal or specialized (i.e. religiously imposed) set of rules, which is the exact opposite of the definition of freedom. Hey, I've got no problem with what you believe, as long as you don't incite any crime, hatred or violence and/or promote misinformation. I actually pity you, in many ways, because I used to talk about Science (or anything non-Catholic) in the exact same way as you did. I was fortunate to have reasonably accepting parents, but I still can't openly discuss my real opinions with my extended family or some of my more bigoted peers. Here's hoping you at least try to question your personal tenets sometime in the future. It's good for the mind and makes you a far more understanding person.

[Guest ∂materasu]

This topic has run wild. Congratulations, you have a crashed topic.

For more fanfiction, I just really recommend this page, by the way: (if anyone's interested)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/FanficRecs/HarryPotter

[evilfusion]

This discussion has all but ceased to be relevent to the original topic. On the flip side, Mikhail's posts have genuinely fascinated and intrigued me. And this is a big deal.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

So you believe that we should be sceptical about scepticism because scepticism is bad. That's extraordindarily hypocritical.

 

It's not "extraordindarily hypocritical" in the least because I never said skepticism was bad, just that it is a part of science's doctrine.

 

Science is free from dogma as any scientific idea can be challenged.

 

Science is only free of dogma in that dogma refers specifically to religious doctrine. Doctrine has made science what it is today. If nobody were to believe it to be ideal that science be practiced, it wouldn't exist. Even if people were to believe it ideal that science be practiced but nobody believed in the means by which it is practiced today, it would be done differently. With so many different forms of science with each having so many elaborate means of being studied and practiced, means that depend on indoctrination for their survival, science involves VAST amounts of doctrine and is only as powerful and ubiquitous concept as it is because of it.

 

Science is a continuously evolving beast...oh wait, I forgot, you don't like that word.

 

If only you had caught yourself in making the false assumption that all Christians are anti-evolution you could've saved yourself some time. I have no problem with evolution and neither do the majority of Catholics including several popes.

 

http://en.wikipedia....istic_evolution

http://en.wikipedia....t_for_evolution

http://en.wikipedia....h_and_evolution

 

So tell me, what was the purpose of removing a perfectly relevant quote explaining the difference between scientific method/fact and religious indoctrination? You say that it's biased and irrelevant. I don't think it is, and obviously the admins at Wikipedia don't think it is either. So you removed a quote generally judged to be relevant by a large consensus based on your religious beliefs. That's biased, isn't it not? You edit an article because you disagree with it, and thereby affect everyone in the future who reads it, altering their perspective to fit your personal beliefs. That's not helping your argument at all.

 

One of Wikipedia's core policies is to have a neutral point of view. To "explain sides" but not to "take sides". It is not Wikipedia's place to tell us that it is improper to criticize the imposition of scientific doctrine. After all, I wasn't promoting my perspective, I was merely keeping the article free of perspective altogether. If I were to see an article that endorsed a perspective in line with my own, I'd delete that for being biased too. It isn't exactly obvious to me that the Wikipedia admins don't want me abiding by their core policies.

 

There is a particular density of "big-words-to-sound-smart-syndrome" in your final sentence (there are two phrases to describe "big-words-to-sound-smart-syndrome", they are "sesquipedalian loquaciousness" and "grandliloquence" [NOT SO SUBTLE IRONY THERE]. I prefer BWTSSS because it's not as ironic and everyone can understand it), where you basically say freedom has no purpose as freedom comes from belief itself.

 

Except that I wasn't "basically say[ing] freedom has no purpose as freedom comes from belief itself", I was saying that freedom is a commodity that fuels one's beliefs of what is good. Belief comes from freedom.

 

Comparing my former Catholicism to my current lack of faith is just wrong. If I still believed that God could read my mind then I wouldn't drink, masturbate or take drugs. I wouldn't indulge any homosexual tendencies, I wouldn't eat meat on a Friday, I wouldn't tolerate anyone telling me I am wrong and I would defend the Church and its prinicples at all costs. As someone without faith, I now happily do all those things. Someone with no religion has a lot more freedom than a religious person, especially if they are a woman. Their faith limits and prohibits a lot of things, that's undeniable

 

This is because faith is something freedom buys. The culture that surrounds Christianity is to the Christian what drinking, masturbation, and drugs are to the Hedonist. Some think it's worth it, others don't. I would argue that although negative stigma towards homosexual tendencies in the name of faith exists, it is not true to the New Testament and that those who think it is misinterpret it. There are definitely communities and groups for LGBT Christians.

 

http://www.wouldjesu...gay_couple.html

http://www.gaychristian.net/

 

Hey, I've got no problem with what you believe, as long as you don't incite any crime, hatred or violence and/or promote misinformation.

 

Likewise, although given the nature of our beliefs we might have to agree to disagree with regards to the promotion of misinformation in that we have different beliefs of what that is. All that we can really do is trust each other's good intentions and perhaps find common ground with regards to other things.

[Randomflyingobjects]

I always thought of Harry Potter as an okay series. It wasn't really the stuff pointed out, but mainly because they skip a lot of time, so that the plot doesn't resolve until the end of the school year. With the whole 'Time travel' business, they could have save the majority of the main characters that died. Fred's death cofused me, with a random explosion coming out of nowhere, and everyone goes flying. Why Harry used the Ressurection Stone to say 'Hi, guys! How's it goin'? Oh, well, looks like I have to go face Voldemort now. See ya!', then throwing the stone randomly is beyond me. The thing that really bugs me is all the drama of Dumbledore dying, when they could just walk over to his painting to ask advice. Quidditch and everything else was just to increase the page count.

[Dr. Cakey]

I always thought of Harry Potter as an okay series. It wasn't really the stuff pointed out, but mainly because they skip a lot of time, so that the plot doesn't resolve until the end of the school year. With the whole 'Time travel' business, they could have save the majority of the main characters that died. Fred's death cofused me, with a random explosion coming out of nowhere, and everyone goes flying. Why Harry used the Ressurection Stone to say 'Hi, guys! How's it goin'? Oh, well, looks like I have to go face Voldemort now. See ya!', then throwing the stone randomly is beyond me. The thing that really bugs me is all the drama of Dumbledore dying, when they could just walk over to his painting to ask advice. Quidditch and everything else was just to increase the page count.

Wrong topic. This is the Nature of Belief, Freedom, and Dogma Discussion Topic.

 

I'll insert just a brief comment - I want to encourage people to avoid generalizing, both positively and negatively. The opinions toward homosexuality vary drastically depending upon denomination. The single largest Christian denomination, Catholicism, has a blurry and highly amusing position - they have no problem with gay people, as long as they don't try to marry or have sex. Of course, most Catholics are considerably more liberal than the church itself, so while the institution itself is vaguely kinda-sorta anti-gay and staunchly anti-abortion, the number of American Catholics who are pro-choice is on the order of 90% (don't actually have the statistic, could've made that one up). On the flip side, there is no end to the scientists who behave in extraordinarily unscientifc ways. The difference (because I enjoy weird ironies) is that the probably with science is more the people than the ideal, and the problem with religion is more the ideal than the people. Or, to paraphrase some Indian guy: "I like your Christians. I do not like your Christ."

 

Oh yeah, that was brief.

[Guest ∂materasu]

Wrong topic. This is the Nature of Belief, Freedom, and Dogma Discussion Topic.

 

Harry Potter is awful and you suck for liking it.

 

Seems like the title for a religious debate, especially when it is in the Literature section. I must have missed the other topic where people are discussing Harry Potter, because that is exactly what you are insinuating.

[Tentacruel]

Yay! We're back on topic. So I think we can all agree with Crab, although the obvious flaws doesn't neccesarily make it terrible, as it is enjoyable and that's what counts. Kinda.

[Vairocana]

Yay! We're back on topic. So I think we can all agree with Crab, although the obvious flaws doesn't neccesarily make it terrible, as it is enjoyable and that's what counts. Kinda.

 

Comrade Trollestia supports Twilight.

[Tentacruel]

F*** you! This is America and I can contradict myself with no sense if I damn well please!

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

the probably with science is more the people than the ideal, and the problem with religion is more the ideal than the people. Or, to paraphrase some Indian guy: "I like your Christians. I do not like your Christ."

 

Oh yeah, that was brief.

 

People are defined by their ideals.

[Hydra of Ages]

F*** you! This is America and I can contradict myself with no sense if I damn well please!

 

I'm fairly certain I'm still in Canada.

 

Harry Potter is poorly plotted. It's long in all the places it should be short, short in all the spots it should explain more, confused in its intentions and, worst of all, few of the characters are particularly interesting, let alone worthy of heavy investment. As far as prose goes, it could be worse I suppose; it doesn't choke on its own description very often, and I like many of the settings it tries to build.

 

The Department of Secrets was probably my favourite; a dungeon filled with dark, often evil magic that nobody understands, yet still organized by a sort of macabre clerical efficiency? How neat. I can even forgive some of the stupidly unexplained things there (the veil, the locked room) because the mood of the set requires a certain degree of mystery to everything that happens. It's a crying shame the climactic scene that takes place there is so bloody stupid.

 

That's probably why I liked it so much as a kid, come to think of it. No matter how poorly it uses them, it has to be admitted that Rowling came up with some pretty neat ideas for her world now and then, even if she spared less than the bare minimum to keep them consistent. As a child, I know I spent more time ooing and awwing over the neat situations Harry and friends would get into than I did analysing the actual literary merit of anything I was reading.

 

People are defined by their ideals.

 

Philosophers are defined by their ideals.

 

People are defined by their actions.

[Doc.]

So much off-topic, and not one f*** was given by Moderators that day...

[Guest God Crouton!!!]

I hate both Harry Potter and Twilight because I've worked at the movie theater for 7 years, and have dealt with the hoards of people paying to see those movies, bringing in their books, and leaving giant messes afterwards. Thank God Harry Potter is finished and Twilight only has 1 more movie left...until we get Harry Potter Episode 1: The Quidditch Menace and Twilight Episode 1: The Sparkling Vampire Menace. It sounds like Battle Roy-I mean the Hunger Games has 2 more movies too.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Philosophers are defined by their ideals.

 

People are defined by their actions.

 

Where do you suppose actions come from? That's right, ideals. Kiss the ring, you "Canadian".

[Dr. Cakey]

People are defined by their ideals.

By applying this logic to my statement (assuming both to be true), we can conclude that either all Christians behave in a way I dislike (due to their ideals), or that Christians have a secret, hidden set of ideals that have been hidden from me.

 

Between professed ideals and actual ideals, and between actual ideals and action, you could fit...something really big.

[evilfusion]

Where do you suppose actions come from? That's right, ideals. Kiss the ring, you "Canadian".

 

Why is Canadian in quotations? He is Canadian.

 

In any case, this is gotten so hideously off-topic (although fascinating), and I see little purpose to keeping it open.