U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2013, 02:54 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,371,891 times
Reputation: 3735

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
"Boring" is not only lack of "amusement" but lack of being "engaging." There is nothing engaging about science being incorrectly applied to philosophical questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by astounded-rflmn
But there's a lot wrong with denying it when it so absolutely does deny all the old MAGIC myths. No, right now it can't be applied to why you feel love for your cat (though eventually it will define the biochemical engrams and neural reactions that DO generate those feelings, just not now), but if your God is therefore absolutely credited as being responsible for a 6000 year old "Insta-Poofy-ist" creation myth, that of man and everything else coming into existence in one week, with a mere wave of His hand, why then, we all have a problem with simple common sense: we both CAN and HAVE disproven that silliness, beyond any rational alternative.

So your attempts at your own version of hand-waving it all off doesn't buy you any rational slack here. Your tacit commentary of how science fails at so many things hardly deflects what it DOES prove, and so eloquently and beyond "adequately".
I was obviously talking about the people who use science only arguments to justify atheism. People like Dawkins, Dennet and the rest of those numbskulls. They are indeed all science this and study that, and never any philosophy. Compare this to the old school atheists and you see the difference.

Quote:
No, as honest questioning scientists they first decided to objectively evaluate all those blithering and ancient old claims that assure us that the geological column, for instance, is ALL rubbish, that it "obviously" doesn't prove a thing about the age of the earth, but rather that "God laid all those sediments, even the ones up on Everest, down as the Great Fludd receded!" [into where again? Oh c'mon now, let's be sensible. Try it, you'll find it useful!].

How can we scientists be so "smug" you way well ask?

Well it goes like this: if you, for example, have ZERO understanding (or common-sense acceptance...) of how sedimentary geology works, how it effectively captures, for example, all the fishies that predictably (then and now..) die off after their ANNUAL spawn, or how ANNUAL pollen drops, or ANNUAL leaf fall or ANNUAL freshets force spectacularly DIFFERENT types of ANNUAL sediment (spring freshet runnoff being capable, then, as now, of carrying hugely & obviously different bedload materials into their final sedimentary resting places into ANNUAL layers called VARVES...

...why then of course you're going to rant on about how science therefore does not ever provide effective answers in the disciplines that so effectively annihilate your rancid olde tyme myths. The very ones you insist are too strictly and rationally interpreted by "numbskulls".

We all understand, of course, that these media-friendly professionals represent literally millions of similarly minded thinkers, but since these guys are so effective in getting the attention of the more interested listening and viewing public, the anti-science hordes must of needs denigrate them all. Even snidely and childishly calling them "numbskulls", or as some others have, "egotistical morons!". Yep: for sure!

It's therefore so predictable that those genuine and believable presenters of science's profuse achievements, those with the most attentive audience, should therefore be so crudely and viciously attacked.

But rather, you'd insist instead that we need to take a more iffy-jiffy understanding of how it alternately did happen, and then you fill in the revised "understandings" with all-new myths of your own, calling the likes of these "hugely better-educated than you" guys like Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, Darwin et al... what was it again? Oh yeah: "numbskulls".

This leaves your level of understanding exactly where then? Where, on a similar grade of IQ and understanding? I'm not sure there's too many words that lay that much further down such a scale so as to adequately cover your pathetic level of understanding, and anyhow for sure I'd be sanctioned for using such language anyways, so I'll just leave it to yours, and our readers', imaginations.
Accounting is boring, does that mean I have a witchdoctor do my taxes? I can see the use of something I find too dull to study personally.

Quote:
Ahahhh! So you also find science's understandings too boring for your utility then. Or is it perhaps too frightening? Which is it, pray tell?
I have met existential atheists in life, and they are interesting...the left hemisphere nerdy types are a different story entirely.
Quote:
You mean we more insistent types? Those of us who won't just cave in to your pathetic and hostile commentary? OK: I get it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Again, science has its uses for flat facts (a scan of the heart shows this going on) but is useless when it comes to none flat-fact based question (does faith have value?)

Too bad the best things in life cannot be demonstrated scientifically. Love, beauty, humor, hotness, God, are all unapproachable by science. Science can answer some questions but for others...it falls flat.

Quote:
The best things in life? How pathologically inept. You are saying a clear and demonstrable understanding of our origins, and thus our possible futures, are somehow not of the best things in life"? As long as you can just hand-wave way the facts, and then fall on "love, humor, hotness and so on you think you've won? How humorous. Deny the most important things, and rely on the intangibles as the entire reason for our existence? Phunny!
"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
What I suspect is going on here is that since science tends to utterly invalidate a number of the assertions of religions, you are grasping for some means to discredit science. However, "I don't like it, it is boring" is not a relevant assault.

Do you have anything else?
Nope: he/she does not. This is all he'she's got!

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
...yes, science is great for FLAT FACTS. Want to know what the density of the average rat dropping is? Science is for you. Want to know what the chemical composition of swamp gas is? Science can tell you...what is the meaning of life? What is happiness?

Does the question "is there are God" make any sense and does it matter? Why should I be nice to someone? Should I hate my enemies or love them? All some of the countless questions that Myth and religion can answer, but science cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by continuing-to-be-amused-rflmn
No, yet you assume religion and your God can, but by discrediting some things that science cannot answer, you then try, via "guilt by association" I'll assume, that it therefore cannot address such mundane things as the demonstrable origins of us, of life, and of Evolution (i.e.: species diversity). And puh-leeze... don't try that "Evolution can't explain the origins of life either, nyah nyah.!!!" Nope, it can't and never claimed to. Try to grow up intellectually, would'jah, huh?
Can science tell me why I find Chris Rock funnier than Jeff Foxworthy? No. So in your opinion, comedy is pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by and so on
Oh. is that how you want to leave it? Typical.

We can tell you is exactly how Evolution, for example, does work. We can demonstrate it now in any lab, it's been shown to function in real life and the newest tool, DNA lineage and genome tracking, can clearly show that a current animal or plant species has exact prior roots in an earlier version. without an possible doubt. It is indeed and exactly one of those cold hard facts you claim science is so good at!
No, I resolved this five times so far: like flat facts? Stick to science. Want to know about life, humanity and what we are? That is for philosophy, Mythology, religion etc. No one can live a completely rational life (it would involve being an emotionless robot) and hence the study of things irrational is absolutely necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tired.rflmn
Be our guest, but leave the interpretation of cold hard facts, such as Evolution, geology, the ongoing evolution and creation of the greater universe and so on, to those of us with the hard education and experience to effectively evaluate and dispassionately interpret it.

I.e.: don 't try to debunk that which is not debunkable. You're clearly out of your league both educationally and intellectually; that's an easily demonstrable fact, victorian-punk.

Now go home and get some rest: tomorrow will be just as hard on you if you continue to refuse to accept facts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2013, 03:55 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
victorianpunk

Obviously it is. For example, the Bible myth would have us believe that Earth is 6000 years old. Science has established that this is incorrect. Do you still subscribe to the myth? Without science, how would you know with certainty that it was false? Via philosophical reasoning?


First, the whole "do you still subscribe to the Myth" question proves you don't understand what I'm talking about. Of course I subscribe to the Myth: it is a Myth, and it has meaning. Hence, I subscribe to it.

The Myth of creating shows that we came into being and existed in a state of primordial ignorant bliss, i.e., the Garden of Eden. This can easily be understood as our years as hunter gatherers. Then Eve ate from the tree of knowledge and was cast out from Eden. This can easily be understood as gaining a sophisticated enough understanding of agriculture (i.e., the tree) to leave "the garden" and till the soil. Man then wore clothing and worked hard and Eve had children who warred with each other. This can easily be understood as the first cities, with Eve having children representing the population boom after we had a surplus of food for the first time and war between cities that followed.

Now all this makes sense considering the time period in which these Myths were born, which was within the memory of the birth of civilization in Mesopotamia.

So, do I subscribe to the Genesis Myth? Of course. Do I take it literally? Of course not.

Again, like it's like music: do I subscribe to the Song "Sweet Child of Mine"? Of course, who the hell doesn't like Guns and Roses? Do I take the lyrics literally? No, I understand it is a song an hence uses metaphors to get its point across. No woman has "eyes of the bluest skies" as the shade of blue seen in eyes is different from the shade of blue in the sky. Does that mean the song was all BS and science proves that the song is incorrect? No, it was not meant to be taken literally and can only be understood as metaphor.

Fast forward: does science prove Genesis is BS? No, it was not meant to be taken literally and can only be understood as metaphor.

"That would be a mistake in the reading of the symbol. That is reading the words in terms of prose instead of in terms of poetry, reading the metaphor in terms of the denotation instead of the connotation."-Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth"

Quote:
Any attempt at philosophy will have to cope with the discoveries of science if it wishes to be accurate.


Let me see if I can explain this simply: Science "discovers" a new particle. Philosopher questions if the scientist who "discovers" the particle is real and not just something he's imagining in a dream. Scientist scratches his head, realizing there is no way to prove the existence of reality.

The only thing we know the exist for a fact is our own mind. Everything else is uncertain.

And also, philosophy figures out what to do with science once it makes something. For example: science creates a nuclear bomb. Philosophy decides if we should use it on a civilian population or not.

We all use philosophy, it is one of the marks of sentience. Every human being on Earth needs philosophy...it is just that some people are so left hemisphere that they refuse to analyze philosophy actively because they simply can't understand it. Hence they condemn that which is over their heads.


Quote:
And your inclusion of an emoticon once more reveals that you have this oddball notion that we are interested in your emotional reactions to the world.




<<WE ARE THE BORG. EMOTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. SCIENCE WILL CRUSH YOUR HUMANITY AND REASON WILL ENSLAVE YOU. END TRANSMISSION>>


Quote:
Another difference between us. If someone thinks something which I regard as deeply stupid, that person loses x amount of respect in my eyes. That person "acknowledging" that someone else has different point of view hardly ameliorates the actual problem, which is that this person is guilty of bad think.
When did I ever say science was "stupid"? It isn't. All I said was it's boring. If someone says the study of religion is boring I couldn't care less.

Quote:
And again with the emoticons....are you some sort of hysteric?
You complain about someone using emoticons on the internet...do you also complain about someone drinking coffee at Starbucks?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 04:51 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Speak for yourself. Just because YOU do not take it literally that does not mean many people do not. I have in fact identified three groups of people: Those who think it is just symbolism only, those who think it really does change but only in a spiritual undetectable way, and those that think a literal physical change does occur.

The first group are saying essentially nothing at all. So they are innocuous really.
I can't speak for literalist because I am not one. And throwing the old "most religious people believe XYZ" is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.




Quote:
I recognise little of what you say here and am not sure of whom you speak. Science is, as you point out, only applicable to claims about reality. If you want to make one thing symbolic of another that's fine with me. If you want to create metaphors, then so is that. Much great literature and art would be dead if humans did not have this faculty. We are a species that personifies things around us and that ability leads us to great art and beauty and literature and more. I am all for it.
Scientific imperialism, the whole "science is everything" crowd would challenge you.

Quote:
The issue many like me have with religion is when people take that one step more and start to think that these personifications are actually real, they exist in reality and, worse, their demands, wishes, plans and moralities are something we as a species should be pandering to or modelling ourselves on. It is those people we resist and debate against, not the people banding around artsty-fartsy symbolism and metaphor. I have nothing against such people and never have had.
Oh yes...and science has NEVER forced anything on humanity it didn't want

Tuskegee syphilis experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unasylva - No. 107 - Forestry, the environment and man's needs - Scientific imperialism

And fundamentalism is dying out. In America, no one forces anyone to believe anything...well, that isn't true as I sat down in a public school and they tried to indoctrinate me into believing in Reason. I grew up and read Bergson, Kierkegaard, Hamann, Dostoevsky and the other thinkers The State didn't want me exposed to in their institutions. I made the conclusion that Reason is indeed a form of slave thought. If one wants to believe in a literal deity, fine, but they should understand that they are throwing Reason out the window...which isn't really a bad thing.


Quote:
A perfectly laudable idea in theory but alas the theory does not often match the reality. The play ground of religion is all too often our ignorance. Where there is something we do not know... a question we have not answered yet.... people insert their "God of the gaps" there and act like this is evidence or substantiation for the actual existence of their currently preferred deity of choice.
Science to breeds on ignorance, or at least it can breed very ignorant people. When confronted with a question science can't answer (do other minds exist besides me own?) people on this very thread stand up and say "that's stupid and I wont even ponder that!". Expressing a desire to not want to think about something is the definition of ignorance.

Quote:
As science fills in those gaps the play ground of religion really is eroded and pushed back. This is not "Non overlapping magisteria" rather a direct war where there is a one directional taking of land by one group off the other. Simply ask yourself the question: Is there any question for which once religion had the best answer but now science provides the best one? The answer is yes, many times over. Is there however any questions that science once had the best answer for but which now the best answer comes from religion? I have yet to think of a single one.


First, religion never tried to answer natural question. That is one of the most widely spread lies I see all the time. The Myths were NEVER meant to be taken literally. Second, I can think of thousands of things religion can do that science can't.

A woman had a child die...science? No answer to her suffering. Religion? Dozens of answers.
A Mother's Grief | BUDDHA STORY

What if someone has less money than a rich man, what can science tell them to consul them? Nothing.
Acts 17:11 Bible Study: Money in Scripture

The examples go on and on.

Quote:
The theory is pretty and all happy slappy. But the reality is the two realms of discourse are in direct and on going conflict.
Only as long as literalism is the only language both parties speak. When literalism is abandoned there is no conflict between science and religion. As the great Joseph Campbell once said: "Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interrupting them as facts, then you are in trouble."


Quote:
We already are. The eye of science has recently turned to art and using our knowledge of biology and evolution to understand exactly why art is beautiful to us, interesting to us, and why it compels us the way it does. Of course the very idea science should turn its eyes to such things is horrific to some people and they rail against it... but it is happening, it is not stopping and we are finding very interesting results from it. Everything from visual art to metaphor is now in the purview of science and we use our study of the brain to understand why we enjoy such things... and our enjoyment of such things is in turn used in our studies of the brain.


First, I was talking about how it would look if people interrupted song lyrics as literally as they did religious Mythology. Again, scientifically, "Sweet Child of Mine" can't be real. A woman's eyes cannot be the same shade as the sky. So, literally speaking, the song is bullocks. Just as it would be absurd for a scientist to interrupt the song lyrics literally and try to "debunk" their poetry, it would be absurd for a scientist to try to debunk religious Myths.

Second, the old "science can explain beauty" line is as tired as it is false. I like small breasts. My brother likes big breasts. We have similar DNA, grow up in the same house with the same culture, but have completely different views on who is hot. Science can't explain that.

And as for music, science can't explain its beauty. Ever hear of noise music? It is just that: noise. And yet people love it despite the fact that it breaks every "law" of music theory.

The artistic likely hood cannot be predicted through science nor can beauty. Science should stick to finding the average density of rat droppings or the chemical composition of swamp gas leave the art to artists, the theology to theologians and so forth.

Quote:
Like it or not this is happening and those who dislike it are welcome to do it but I advise they bear in mind there is not a single thing short of waging bloody holy jihad on us that will prevent us from doing so.
The truth is atheism is fading away. Atheism has seen a shard decline in its growth rates, as is revealed in two studies:
Bucking previous trends, survey finds growth of the religiously unaffiliated slowing – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

ARIS 2008 | American Religious Identification Survey 2008

Also, atheism has the lowest "retention rate" of any "religion" (I know atheism isn't really a religion, so spare me that line)

Why Aren’t Atheist Parents Raising Atheist Children?

And spare me, SPARE ME the "but that's a bias Christian survey!" line. If it was then why would they show Hinduism as having the highest retention rate and not Christianity?



In the end, a some education makes people atheist...and more education makes them New Theists, like myself. The tide is turning and more and more people are abandoning the dogmas of rationalism and fundamentalism. There is a reason why Alan Watts outsells Christopher Hitchens and Joseph Campbell outsells Dawkins.

Disagree all you want, but more people are turning to New Theism and mysticism every day and nothing short of a Cult of Reason is going to stop us.
Cult of Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 04:52 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
"


Nope: he/she does not. This is all he'she's got!



I would love to reply, but I literally cannot read anything you posted and do not know who said what.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2013, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 6,019,619 times
Reputation: 2577
Science is a method to answer questions. How can a method force anything on anyone?





Quote:
Science to breeds on ignorance, or at least it can breed very ignorant people. When confronted with a question science can't answer (do other minds exist besides me own?) people on this very thread stand up and say "that's stupid and I wont even ponder that!". Expressing a desire to not want to think about something is the definition of ignorance.
Science does not breed ignorance. "Do other minds exist" Yes. I can see other humans with cognitive minds.
Thus, I conclude minds besides my own exist.
Was that so hard?




Quote:
A woman had a child die...science? No answer to her suffering. Religion? Dozens of answers.
A Mother's Grief | BUDDHA STORY

What if someone has less money than a rich man, what can science tell them to consul them? Nothing.
Acts 17:11 Bible Study: Money in Scripture

The examples go on and on.
Dude. Are you serious? Social acts and the scientific method have nothing to do with each other.

Figuring out how much gasoline a car burns is science.
Wondering if you should turn left or right is NOT science.
That's essentially what you're saying.
That science sucks because it doesn't help you decide where to turn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 01:15 AM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alacran View Post
Science is a method to answer questions. How can a method force anything on anyone?
The method of observing a disease in its full life cycle requires people too be taken and given scam treatment and allowed to die, while data is gathered. That is exactly what happened during the Tuskegee Experiment. There was some evidence that black people had a better survival rate from syphilis than whites. That data needed to be backed up, and the easiest way of doing so was to watch dozens of black men die.

It was science, full steam ahead, with no regard to the suffering of the "expendable" poor black men. It was completely rational and scientific. I am not a rationalist and hence I can make a purely emotion statement without any hypocrisy: IT WAS F** ED UP.




Quote:
Science does not breed ignorance. "Do other minds exist" Yes. I can see other humans with cognitive minds.
Thus, I conclude minds besides my own exist.
Was that so hard?
I have seen other humans in dreams, and awoken to find they existed only in my mind. How do I know this is not a more elaborate dream? Science cannot answer that question. Science requires us to observe the natural world through our sense but cannot tell us if our senses are in fact observing the real world or s simulation. Science takes it on faith that the real world exist and hence, science is based on faith.




Quote:
Dude. Are you serious? Social acts and the scientific method have nothing to do with each other.
That is exactly what I was saying. The other poster said he did not see what religion could do that science could not. I pointed out that it can answer moral, ethical, and spiritual questions that science is unfit to answer. At the same time science is where we should turn for understanding the physical world, not religion. As long as one does not take religious Myths literally or hold a view of "scientific imperialism", there is no competition between the two.

"Science tells us the age of rocks, religions tells us about the Rock of Ages"-Dr Stephen Gould, agnostic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 02:19 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,280,365 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
I can't speak for literalist because I am not one.
Exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me. Just because YOU do not take it literally does not give you license to claim... as you did.... that NO ONE does. Speak for yourself only... as soon as you presume to speak for "all" people you have just entered the realm of fantasy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
And throwing the old "most religious people believe XYZ" is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.
Just as well I did not do that then. I never used the word "most" nor did I indicate which of the three groups I identified were bigger than any other. I merely identified three categories. No more. No less. So get over it son and realise you just made my point for me which is simply that you not believing something does not license you to declare no one does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Scientific imperialism, the whole "science is everything" crowd would challenge you.
If they want to. I am talking to you though not them. So do not pass the buck just because you proved my point above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
Oh yes...and science has NEVER forced anything on humanity it didn't want
This is a complete cop out change of subject. The point again... which you did not reply to but quoted and then changed the subject.... is that while personification is a good skill for our species and results in wonderful literature and art.... taking an extra step and thinking those personifications real is an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
people on this very thread stand up and say "that's stupid and I wont even ponder that!".
I will also not waste time pondering assertions made without evidence of any sort. If you want to put forward some kind of hypothesis then I am all ears, but only if that hypothesis comes with some form of substantiation, argument, evidence, data, or reasoning. If you just assert something and run away then yes, you are right, I will not even ponder it. Nor should I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
First, religion never tried to answer natural question.
The above is false. Egregiously so. Religious explanations have been used to answer many questions. Why did crops fail. What is lightning. Why did a person have a ceasure. Why do people die of certain diseases. God being displeased, demonic possession and more have been used to answer these things for a long time.

Now however we have science explanations for these things. Which is good. The point you ignored and ran away from is the reverse has never happened to my knowledge. Ever.

Again if you want to enjoy the symbollism behind religious myths then do so. That is great and we can all do it. I do it myself. Those who want to take it literally however run slam into the brick wall of science and never manage to climb over it.

Nor do face palm smileys an argument make son.

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post
And as for music, science can't explain its beauty.
Says you. But as I pointed out that is exactly where science HAS turned its eye of late. It is looking at exactly why art and music is beautiful to us. Why we enjoy it and use it like we do. You might not want science to do this but that is exactly what it is doing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Chicago
3,569 posts, read 6,019,619 times
Reputation: 2577
[quote=victorianpunk;29013877]
Quote:
The method of observing a disease in its full life cycle requires people too be taken and given scam treatment and allowed to die, while data is gathered. That is exactly what happened during the Tuskegee Experiment. There was some evidence that black people had a better survival rate from syphilis than whites. That data needed to be backed up, and the easiest way of doing so was to watch dozens of black men die.

It was science, full steam ahead, with no regard to the suffering of the "expendable" poor black men. It was completely rational and scientific. I am not a rationalist and hence I can make a purely emotion statement without any hypocrisy: IT WAS F** ED UP.
Okay? Like you previously asserted "Science doesn't question it's methods".
In this case, some question was definitely needed. It is MAN's fault. Not the scientific method. Science is a TOOL. Man ultimately decides how to use that tool.
There where defineitly different approaches of figuring this out. But it was not the TOOL's fault at all.



Quote:
I have seen other humans in dreams, and awoken to find they existed only in my mind. How do I know this is not a more elaborate dream? Science cannot answer that question. Science requires us to observe the natural world through our sense but cannot tell us if our senses are in fact observing the real world or s simulation. Science takes it on faith that the real world exist and hence, science is based on faith.
There are plenty of studies on dreams. They're most likely just your brain sorting thoughts from your life.
Nothing magical about it.



Quote:
That is exactly what I was saying. The other poster said he did not see what religion could do that science could not. I pointed out that it can answer moral, ethical, and spiritual questions that science is unfit to answer. At the same time science is where we should turn for understanding the physical world, not religion. As long as one does not take religious Myths literally or hold a view of "scientific imperialism", there is no competition between the two.
Society constructs morals and ethics.
Spiritual questions have no place anywhere. What is "spiritual"? A made up term to describe euphoric feelings?

Anyway, Science can definitely help society with it's discoveries. Everything from around the renaissance and up has been advancing technologically at great speeds thanks to science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:08 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Exactly my point. Thanks for making it for me. Just because YOU do not take it literally does not give you license to claim... as you did.... that NO ONE does. Speak for yourself only... as soon as you presume to speak for "all" people you have just entered the realm of fantasy.
Problem is this: anti-theists more often than not claim that all theists believe God is a literal big bearded white guy in a toga sitting on a cloud who literally created everything in six days. That is not the God I worship. If you say "there is no God" you are saying all conceptualizations of God are false, which is clearly a fallacy. Saying "science refutes God" is absurd: my God is metaphorically at "least". How can science refute a metaphor?


Quote:
Just as well I did not do that then. I never used the word "most" nor did I indicate which of the three groups I identified were bigger than any other. I merely identified three categories. No more. No less. So get over it son and realise you just made my point for me which is simply that you not believing something does not license you to declare no one does.
Yes and there are people who believe the world is flat too. What's your point?


Quote:
This is a complete cop out change of subject. The point again... which you did not reply to but quoted and then changed the subject.... is that while personification is a good skill for our species and results in wonderful literature and art.... taking an extra step and thinking those personifications real is an issue.
You claim that religion is forced on people. It has been and still is in certain parts of the world. I agree and also add that so is science.

Quote:
I will also not waste time pondering assertions made without evidence of any sort. If you want to put forward some kind of hypothesis then I am all ears, but only if that hypothesis comes with some form of substantiation, argument, evidence, data, or reasoning. If you just assert something and run away then yes, you are right, I will not even ponder it. Nor should I.
What is "evidence?" That is the bottom line question. "Scientific evidence" is just one kind of evidence. Is there scientific evidence for God as a "true" being existing outside the human mind? Not really...is there existential evidence for the greatness of science? Not really.

Is there evidence for the reality I am experiencing right now? Yes...just as there was evidence of demons in the house I dreamed of last night. I saw them, felt them, ran from them and had evidence that demons were in that house...then I woke up. Who is to say that everything science reveals to them is just as much a cloud of smoke as my dream of a demon was and that they will not wake up to find they were a butterfly dreaming the whole thing? 2,000+ years later and Zhaungzi still wins the argument.


Quote:
The above is false. Egregiously so. Religious explanations have been used to answer many questions. Why did crops fail. What is lightning. Why did a person have a ceasure. Why do people die of certain diseases. God being displeased, demonic possession and more have been used to answer these things for a long time.
That was not religion but folk beliefs. There is a big difference between the two. A folk belief today is that being cold will give you a cold...is that a religious belief?

Quote:
Now however we have science explanations for these things. Which is good. The point you ignored and ran away from is the reverse has never happened to my knowledge. Ever.
Ah, I actually refuted that easily. Science cannot comfort a grieving parent (I posted a Buddhist story that does) or explain why accumulating riches is pointless (I posted a Biblical essay explaining that) I have yet to see a table of elements for how best to have fun, but Bacchus can answer that. I don't know of an equation for how to see beyond the day to day to the transcendent nature of self, but the Gnostic gospels spell that out.


Quote:
Nor do face palm smileys an argument make son.
Ah, maybe the links and arguments I have been making make the argument? Salt does not make a meal, but it enhances flavor. Demotivational posters don't make an argument, but they do enhance the flavor.

Quote:
Says you. But as I pointed out that is exactly where science HAS turned its eye of late. It is looking at exactly why art and music is beautiful to us. Why we enjoy it and use it like we do. You might not want science to do this but that is exactly what it is doing.


I answered that one too
, but you chose to ignore it so here it is again: Why do I find Riley Reid to be hot while my brother thinks she is too flat and prefers Teagan Presley? Similar DNA, same household we grew up in, same cultural background, but we find different porn stars attractive? Science looks for the structure in music to find why it is appealing...then why do people like noise music that has no structure? I mean, why is Throbbing Gristle still listened too years later despite not following the "laws" of music?


Throbbing Gristle We Hate You (Little Girls) - YouTube

Can science explain why people love abstract art while others hate it? Can science explain why I love flan while others can't stand it? No, no, no, and no. Science can try to explain all those things, but it will be just as successful as prayer has been in splitting atoms.


Please note that ignoring the obliteration of your "points" and restating them does not an argument make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2013, 05:22 PM
 
6,342 posts, read 8,745,344 times
Reputation: 3449
[quote=Alacran;29016570]
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk View Post

Okay? Like you previously asserted "Science doesn't question it's methods".
In this case, some question was definitely needed. It is MAN's fault. Not the scientific method. Science is a TOOL. Man ultimately decides how to use that tool.
There where defineitly different approaches of figuring this out. But it was not the TOOL's fault at all.
The tool of science said to obtain the data correctly they had to monitor someone from start to finish to watch them die and record the data. To refuse to do so would be to inhibit the tool (science)

And religion could also be called a tool, but religion is always blamed for things and not its followers. Difference is religion has doctrines which can be pointed out to prove what a religious person is doing is incorrect, while science does not. For example, the Koran says it is wrong to kill innocent people, hence those "Islamic terrorists" are actually going against Islam. The scientists of the Tuskegee Experiment, on the other hand, were indeed scientists and there was scientifically nothing wrong with what they did and they were very rational in their behavior. I am not a rationalist, so I can freely say they were douche bags.



Quote:
There are plenty of studies on dreams. They're most likely just your brain sorting thoughts from your life.
Nothing magical about it.


And how do we know that the scientists doing those studies are themselves not dreams that we are stuck in? How can we prove that we are not brains in jars on an alien ship made to have hallucinations that we are a fictional race called "humans"? Why is Solipsism so difficult for you to understand? You can disagree, fine, but if you can't understand as simple a philosophical concept as Solipsism...


Quote:
Society constructs morals and ethics.
Spiritual questions have no place anywhere. What is "spiritual"? A made up term to describe euphoric feelings?


And society teaches those morals and ethics THROUGH RELIGIOUS MYTHOLOGY! How hard is that to understand?

And spiritual has a clear definition: it is that which pertains to the transcendent beyond the everyday.


Quote:
Anyway, Science can definitely help society with it's discoveries. Everything from around the renaissance and up has been advancing technologically at great speeds thanks to science.
Yep, it sure can:









"Science never solves a problem without creating ten more"-George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top