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.
Thank you for your insightful contribution, TroutDude Jr. Picking up the slack in mental masturbation during his absence? You left off the mandatory Rolling Eyes Emoji, but we'll overlook your howling faux pas just this once.
As I pointed out on your Ten Truths thread, your Ten Truths are little more than a manifesto of Scientism. You worship at the altar of Scientism. You posture yourself as sincere and open-minded, but you are in fact wedded to Scientism and the naturalistic paradigm as tightly as a Muslim jihadist is wedded to his. Science is the only legitimate avenue of inquiry. Science does, or eventually will, explain Everything. If Science can't investigate something, it isn't worth thinking about. Efforts to grapple with issues beyond the ken of Science are futile, generally delusional and often dangerous. Just have faith in Science - and it is a species of faith, make no mistake - and all will be well.
Science investigates the natural order, period. Science is capable of investigating only the natural order, period. If the natural order were a closed steady-state one with no beginning and no end, Scientism would be appropriate. But scientific "answers" are revised radically almost every decade, the science of 100 years ago often seems absurd ("the ether," anyone?), and virtually no one now thinks we live in a closed steady-state universe with no beginning and no end. Once Science begins speculating about the origin of the natural order, it engages in quasi-religious speculation that is no more falsifiable than is a Creator; it rules out a Creator solely on the basis of philosophical prejudices, not legitimate scientific methodology.
For those who worship at the altar of Scientism, it's surely frustrating that the great mass of humans do and always have refused to play the game. They refuse to be confined in the little box in which the devotees of Scientism choose to confine themselves. They refuse to accept the narrow definition of evidence that the devotees of Scientism insist upon. They recognize that Science answers only part of the riddle of existence and can't touch the underlying mystery; the real questions of existence, the ones that really matter, are beyond the ken of Science.
As a Christian, I welcome all scientific inquiry. God has created an uncannily orderly universe that is susceptible to scientific investigation and analysis and has blessed humans with brains and abilities uncannily suited to such investigation and analysis. Science was surely part of his plan for humanity. I factor the best scientific evidence from numerous disciplines into my Christianity. But, like most people, I simply decline to play the game of Scientism or to conduct my quest in the straitjacket that Scientism demands.
That is a lot of text to use the scientism straw man as an ad hominem. Here is where you deny your fallacies are fallacies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irkle Berserkle
It's perhaps just a bit comical that, after a quest you suggest was as deep and wide-ranging as mine, you ended up "pretty certain" about and prepared to place your entire faith in a field of human endeavor that has proven itself to be spectacularly, embarrassingly, wrong again and again and again throughout recorded history. You really have more faith than a Muslim jihadist.
Your usual claim that you have done the work, but you have only ever once defended your position (and it had nothing to do with science). That is because we know you have not done the work, and your answers to the big questions will be just assertions.
It's been a long time since I have started a thread, but this thought just occurred to me.
It seems to me that everyone who believes in a god in the western world, in their adult life at least, has made some sort of choice about the kind of god they believe in.
For example, many people these days reject the judgemental, vengeful god as found in the old testament and opt for a more 'god is love' type of god. Why?
If god does actually exist, the type of god it is, wouldn't be a matter of choice.
So you could very possibly be believing in the wrong type of god.
Maybe the Native Americans had it right and there are many gods; of thunder, music, fire, wind and so on.
Many cultures in history have been similarly polytheistic.
So why nail your mast to believing in one type of god, that could be the wrong one?
I'm curious if any of you ever question the type of god you believe in?
Does it even matter? None of us know, so in that sense we are all agnostic.
And if it doesn't matter, why does everyone defend their belief so stridently?
Your thoughts.
Most do not think about the nature of God, nor do make any choice about what kind of god they believe in. Most Christians believe this:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;
And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;*
the third day he rose from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic** church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
That is a lot of text to use the scientism straw man as an ad hominem. Here is where you deny your fallacies are fallacies.
Your usual claim that you have done the work, but you have only ever once defended your position (and it had nothing to do with science). That is because we know you have not done the work, and your answers to the big questions will be just assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
Yes, his short post was accurate.
At least it will give the fake science expert a chance to attack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Which he does multiple times a day even though I stopped responding to his posts weeks ago.
Irkle hasn't appeared here since May 5. One of his new Rules of Engagement is that he is not going to get caught up in the toxicity of the bizarre C-D regulars whose lives seem to consist of haunting these forums and offering the same inane, non-substantive comments over and over and over, ad nauseam. What sort of person finds this a useful and productive way to spend his time - indeed, his LIFE, considering the number of posts these pathetic characters accumulate? What sort of person repeatedly exposes his lack of substance and intellect in this manner? "Mental masturbation" is the only phrase that occurs to me.
phetaroi, who says he "stopped responding to my posts weeks ago," actually responded to two of my posts yesterday, once on this very thread. I haven't posted here since May 5, so the "weeks ago" comment scarcely fits at all. Harry is the proverbial broken record. I don't believe he has ever responded to one of my posts without his silly "fallacy" accusations in circumstances where they simply don't fit and his accusation that I never post "substance." When I actually took him up on his silly Bayes' Theorem nonsense, I was met with resounding silence. All hat and no cattle, as the saying goes.
My intellect (such as it is), my substance (such as it is) and the depth of my research and thinking (such as its is) are amply on display in my posts. Take them for what they are worth to you. If you have a substantive comment or question, I'll respond if I'm able. But spare me and others the toxic one-liners and emojis that only demonstrate what sad and angry little people you are - on a Religion & Spirituality forum, no less. You're going to get no further response from me.
The reality is, LearnMe's Ten Truths and other posts consistently reflect the position of Scientism. Scientism is a belief system separate and distinct from scientific methodology and scientific disciplines. It is a quasi-religion. My supposedly hyperbolic post accurately described it. This is a good little summary from the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/...-is-scientism/. Despite the open-minded posture that LearnMe adopts, the substance of his posts reveals a Scientism fundie, simple as that. If his posts are helpful to you, if you agree with his positions, OK fine. I have responded in good faith, only to bring the toxic peanut gallery out of the woodwork like some weird species of groupie.
I have 21 years of formal education. I have made my living in a highly analytic field. I don't claim to be a scientist - why would I, when I'm not? But I have done a great deal of reading and study across multiple scientific disciplines that relate to the subjects discussed here, as well as the philosophy of science. I daresay my studies concerning the nature of consciousness, for example, have been as deep as any layman's could reasonably be.
The toxic peanut pretty much just hates traditional Christians, simple as that. When they encounter one they can't handle, they resort to inanity such as the above. Surely you can see through them.
The reality is, LearnMe's Ten Truths and other posts consistently reflect the position of Scientism. Scientism is a belief system separate and distinct from scientific methodology and scientific disciplines. It is a quasi-religion. My supposedly hyperbolic post accurately described it. This is a good little summary from the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/...-is-scientism/. Despite the open-minded posture that LearnMe adopts, the substance of his posts reveals a Scientism fundie, simple as that. If his posts are helpful to you, if you agree with his positions, OK fine. I have responded in good faith, only to bring the toxic peanut gallery out of the woodwork like some weird species of groupie.
.
WHAT!! LearnMe and open-minded in the same sentence??
He got a measly 45% in his own Opeminded Quizz he recommended everyone should take.
Can you be Scientism Fundie without any grounding in Science? Or is no knowledge of Science the very qualification for a good and proper Fundie?
phetaroi, who says he "stopped responding to my posts weeks ago," actually responded to two of my posts yesterday, once on this very thread. I haven't posted here since May 5, so the "weeks ago" comment scarcely fits at all. Harry is the proverbial broken record. I don't believe he has ever responded to one of my posts without his silly "fallacy" accusations in circumstances where they simply don't fit and his accusation that I never post "substance." When I actually took him up on his silly Bayes' Theorem nonsense, I was met with resounding silence. All hat and no cattle, as the saying goes.
Religion-ist often stop responding when challenged. They cry foul or make it seem like its all the other person fault. Religion-ist type dish it out in spades and cry when it comes back at them.
Thats how I know I am on the right track. Some atheist are exactly like some theist. I try address the fundy think types. They are the real problem. Middle of the roaders can get along just fine.
Agenda free discussions settle on rational conclusions (there can be more than one) rather quickly.
WHAT!! LearnMe and open-minded in the same sentence??
He got a measly 45% in his own Opeminded Quizz he recommended everyone should take.
Can you be Scientism Fundie without any grounding in Science? Or is no knowledge of Science the very qualification for a good and proper Fundie?
Bingo! Across the entire spectrum of fundies of all varieties, it seems to me that knowledge and understanding are pretty much irrelevant to their fundamentalism. This isn't to say that all fundies lack knowledge and understanding - they certainly don't - but that whatever motivates them to adopt a rigid fundie stance is unrelated to their depth of knowledge and understanding.
Christian fundamentalism isn't inevitably what most people conjure up in their minds when they hear the term "fundie." I could be (I'm not) a rigid Bible literalist to the extent of being a Young Earth Creationist and thinking every word of the Bible is scientifically, historically and theologically correct - a hardcore "fundie" in most peoples' minds. But I might also say "Of course, these are simply my strong convictions. I acknowledge and accept the inevitable uncertainty and the possibility I might be wrong and that someone who holds different convictions might be correct" - not a "fundie," at least to me.
You'll note I did say that LearnMe "postures" as open-minded, not that he is.
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.
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.
