Science as a religion: The "Ten Truths" revisited (behavior, perspective)

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

back to basics: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
simple logic: it is impossible for science to "know what can not be."

just like when you were an atheist you used the same argument "we know from science it can not be."
you're still using the same dogmatic argument which by your own experience you now know is flawed.

glossary: dogmatic, "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true."

I think you missed my point. It is NOT what we do not know that is the problem. It is what we DO know that contradicts the beliefs that are the issue.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I think you missed my point. It is NOT what we do not know that is the problem. It is what we DO know that contradicts the beliefs that are the issue.

my observation is that you are labeling your own beliefs as "knowledge"
while labeling other beliefs which you may disagree with as "beliefs."

that is the very definition of dogmatic:
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

there is no "WE" know. not everyone knows the same things. it varies from person to person.

there is what you know, what she knows, what he knows.
there is what you believe, what she believes, what he believes.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

my observation is that you are labeling your own beliefs as "knowledge"
while labeling other beliefs which you may disagree with as "beliefs."

that is the very definition of dogmatic:
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

there is no "WE" know. not everyone knows the same things. it varies from person to person.

there is what you know, what she knows, what he knows.
there is what you believe, what she believes, what he believes.

You and CB keep flirting with Solipsism to defend your views about Oneness, but everything is NOT subjective.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You and CB keep flirting with Solipsism to defend your views about Oneness, but everything is NOT subjective.

knowing the difference between "facts" and "beliefs opinions views" is useful, if not essential, in discussing the topic of this thread.


i don't use the terms "solipsism" "subjective" and "objective."
How do they relate to the topic of this thread which is "Science as a religion and the 'ten truths' revisited"

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

the topic is "the ten truths" and "science as a religion." regarding the questions asked above, check out the opening post.



posts 128 and 134 written by you, and directly quoted in full, state your beliefs and views regarding "facts" and "fairy tales."

I would remind you that the original post in this thread was not written by the same poster who wrote the Ten Truths essay.

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

the question stands, for anyone to respond:

I'll give you a practical example.

One of the fairy tales that persists in the 'old' Buddhist world is outlined very clearly here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(..._of_the_Buddha). Just scroll down to the section entitled "Life Of Maya".

Or let's take the fairy tale of Jonah being saved from drowning when he was swallowed by a “great fish” (not a whale), and that he lived for 3 days inside the "great fish" and was then vomited out.

You probably believe those fairy tales.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I would remind you that the original post in this thread was not written by the same poster who wrote the Ten Truths essay.

yes. The opening post encompasses both as a thread topic, and the thread title reflects that: "Science as a religion: the 'ten truths' revisited. "

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

I'll give you a practical example. One of the fairy tales that persists in the 'old' Buddhist world is outlined very clearly here: url Maya mother of the Buddha. Or let's take the fairy tale of Jonah being saved from drowning when he was swallowed by a “great fish” (not a whale), and that he lived for 3 days inside the "great fish" and was then vomited out. You probably believe those fairy tales.

so then for everything that you disagree with do you consider that a "fairy tale."
do you believe that everything that is not a "fact" is a "fairy tale"

because in the 'ten truths' a similar false dichotomy is presented; that unless something is a "scientific fact" then it is "not the truth." if its not a "fact" then it is "fiction." others have mentioned "fact or faith" and "if its not science then it is incoherent and insane." those either-or scenarios are false dichotomies.

"the false dichotomy is defined as an argument where only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes."

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

so then for everything that you disagree with do you consider that a "fairy tale."
do you believe that everything that is not a "fact" is a "fairy tale"

because in the 'ten truths' a similar false dichotomy is presented; that unless something is a "scientific fact" then it is "not the truth." if its not a "fact" then it is "fiction." others have mentioned "fact or faith" and "if its not science then it is incoherent and insane." those either-or scenarios are false dichotomies.

"the false dichotomy is defined as an argument where only two choices are presented yet more exist, or a spectrum of possible choices exists between two extremes."

No.

There is a difference between a "fact" and a statement of philosophy.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

No. There is a difference between a "fact" and a statement of philosophy.

there are also views, opinions, beliefs.
and every path of religion and spirituality contains within it a philosophy.