^You got me there. Let me try again.

People are naturally superstitious. Golems, witches, elves, demons etc etc. God is just a part of that ensemble.

(04-11-2018 06:24 AM)Piankhi Wrote:  ^You got me there. Let me try again.

Please don't. Your posts border on parody.

Dupe

(04-09-2018 09:52 PM)Fortis Wrote:  I'm largely skeptical of extreme atheism since it seems to be in league with dumbing us down, pushing relativism (Islam is the religion of peace), and other useful idiocy. Not to mention, many proponents of it are just as Homo and Pedo as the catholic crooks they love to point out.

Fortis my mate, assuming you have faith in a god, and also assuming you don't have faith in the hundreds of other god we know of...

You are 99.9% atheist my friend. You are atheist to the hundreds (thousands?) of god, religions and belief systems that various humans have had faith in since the dawn of time.

Does that make you a Homo/Pedo? Islam apologist?

Do you really need to hate on us, because we went 0.1% more atheist than you?

I mean you understand how its possible not to have faith in hundreds of gods, what is it that inspires such hatred and mistrust of me not having faith in one more?

But atheists don't actually believe in 0 gods. They believe in [1,2] gods, the endpoints of that range being
(1) science; and
(2) themselves.

(04-12-2018 12:41 AM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 09:52 PM)Fortis Wrote:  I'm largely skeptical of extreme atheism since it seems to be in league with dumbing us down, pushing relativism (Islam is the religion of peace), and other useful idiocy. Not to mention, many proponents of it are just as Homo and Pedo as the catholic crooks they love to point out.

Fortis my mate, assuming you have faith in a god, and also assuming you don't have faith in the hundreds of other god we know of...

You are 99.9% atheist my friend. You are atheist to the hundreds (thousands?) of god, religions and belief systems that various humans have had faith in since the dawn of time.

Does that make you a Homo/Pedo? Islam apologist?

Do you really need to hate on us, because we went 0.1% more atheist than you?

I mean you understand how its possible not to have faith in hundreds of gods, what is it that inspires such hatred and mistrust of me not having faith in one more?

What kind of blithering babble is this?

You atheists really are intellectual heavyweights.

I’m signing out.

Don't you mean blithering Babel?

(04-12-2018 12:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  But atheists don't actually believe in 0 gods. They believe in [1,2] gods, the endpoints of that range being
(1) science; and
(2) themselves.

Well you dodged the actual question.

And no, science isn't a god that you can worship or have blind faith in...

But why the massive hate for someone that just doesn't have faith in 0.001% more gods than yourself? How does that minor detail suddenly make them a hated pedo/homo object of hate?

It's not like theists irrationally hate on other people who worship a different god, is it?

oh wait.

(04-12-2018 04:22 AM)fenetre Wrote:  What kind of blithering babble is this?

You atheists really are intellectual heavyweights.

I’m signing out.

Thank 'god'!

You were crucifying me with your logical arguments.

Exorcising me with your knowledgeable answers.

And blessing me with your wisdom.

I was losing 'faith' in my devote atheism wherever you posted!

I can only hope you resurrect your divine presence in the thread.

(04-12-2018 05:03 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:57 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  But atheists don't actually believe in 0 gods. They believe in [1,2] gods, the endpoints of that range being
(1) science; and
(2) themselves.

Well you dodged the actual question.

Well the question is invalid. This accusation seems to be your standard defence whenever someone calls you out on a bullshit argument you make is to start blathering that they're not answering your question. As said, atheists don't believe in zero gods, so to ask why you're "persecuted" for believing in one less god than theists is not a question you get to ask.

(04-12-2018 05:03 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  And no, science isn't a god that you can worship or have blind faith in...

You can certainly have blind faith in science. Most of the population does, as I've demonstrated before - because science is no more intelligible than religion (edit: and/or theology) to the vast majority of people on the planet, and therefore is taken on blind faith by the majority. Unless you'd like to postulate that most people on the planet actually understand, at an intimate level, the mechanics of quantum mechanics, evolution, thermodynamics, etc? And given in social "science", for example, most experiments and findings are not reproduced actually demonstrates the blind faith that people take in science.

The typical argument made by atheists is along the lines "Science will explain all the shit that religion currently talks about eventually." That's the equivalent of a God of the Gaps fallacy, and it's a potent marker of someone who takes science as their religion. Plenty of people worship science when you're prepared to look at their actions, not their lies.

(EDIT: Or take the average delusion that a miracle is something that science has not yet explained. That statement has the underlying premise that science will eventually explain it. As said, the scientific version of the God of the Gaps fallacy.)

(04-12-2018 05:03 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  But why the massive hate for someone that just doesn't have faith in 0.001% more gods than yourself? How does that minor detail suddenly make them a hated pedo/homo object of hate?

Your projection is at IMAX levels here. Has anyone called you a paedophile or homosexual in this thread? Have you been called before any boards of the Holy Inquisition yet? I can point out any number of people who've been persecuted by secular authorities for their religious beliefs, can you point to anyone who's been similarly persecuted by secular authorities for their scientific beliefs?

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said, atheists don't believe in zero gods,

lol, thats the fucking definition of an atheist...

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You can certainly have blind faith in science. Most of the population does,

Well you can read back to the much more civilised chats I had with the now banned Laska about this topic, but if you think 'having in blind faith in science' is even possible, then you don't understand science my boy.

A fundamental principle of science is that 'no blind faith' is allowed -everything is up for challenge - which is diametrically opposite thought paradigm to religion.

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Has anyone called you a paedophile or homosexual in this thread?

My post last page is in direct response to exactly this, learn to read...

(04-14-2018 06:13 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As said, atheists don't believe in zero gods,

lol, thats the fucking definition of an atheist...

I prefer to judge by actions rather than words, and most atheists quite clearly behave as though they believed in science as their god or, as you rather interestingly omitted, themselves.

Quote:

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You can certainly have blind faith in science. Most of the population does,

Well you can read back to the much more civilised chats I had with the now banned Laska about this topic, but if you think 'having in blind faith in science' is even possible, then you don't understand science my boy.

A fundamental principle of science is that 'no blind faith' is allowed -everything is up for challenge - which is diametrically opposite thought paradigm to religion.

Well, unless the idea goes against the prevailing paradigm in many cases. Then it's quite clear certain scientific principles are not, indeed, up for challenge when you judge by scientists' actions rather than words, and indeed there appear to be any number of sacred cows in science that it is not wise to challenge. Global warming, for one. Poor old Chandrasekhar learned how much his ideas were open to challenge when he dared to be an upstart little Indian up against Arthur Eddington. "Oh, but they eventually agreed Chandrasekhar was right." The Catholic Church agreed Galileo was right too eventually, I don't see any credit given for that.

And that aside: I've posted before -- and indeed alluded to one post ago -- how most people require translation, interpretation, of both science and religion. They cannot know it themselves, so they must take scientists' assertions wholly on faith. And the very fact that there are morons out there who engage in what has been called 'scientism' (n. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists; excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques) makes the point for us: people can and often do have blind faith in science. Or are you suggesting the average person can assemble their very own cyclotron and spin up a few Higgs bosons for themselves? Slam a couple of bits of enriched uranium together and start the chain reaction on their own?

Quote:

(04-12-2018 07:00 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Has anyone called you a paedophile or homosexual in this thread?

My post last page is in direct response to exactly this, learn to read...

I did. And I see there Fortis's suggestion that many proponents of atheism are just as homo and pedo as the Catholic crooks they criticise. I didn't see anyone accuse you specifically.

That aside, Fortis's point seems to have been about a seeming concordance between butt and/or childfucking and atheism. You seem to have found that an offensive assertion. On the other hand, given what you've seemed to assert in this thread in the past--

Quote:"His wisdom" always gets handed down by some corrupt, shady, self interested, altar boy fiddling intermediate.

.

--I'd say if you can't take it, don't dish it out my friend.

(04-15-2018 10:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  how most people require translation, interpretation, of both science and religion.

Key point to note here is that you can do an experiment yourself, but you can't measure, test or religious dogma or teachings.

Finding and holding up a few dickheads that do science badly and using them to tar the scientific paradigm is like me dismissing religion based on people to believe in the Easter Bunny. (which I do, but that's also unfair and disingenuous)

You are a smart guy, somewhere deep in your understanding of the scientific principles I am sure you understand how it all works, no matter how many times you have seen people mangle the approach.

I am sure you are smart enough to compare that to religious faith and understand that they stand starkly at opposite ends of a thought paradigm.

Most clever religious people admit this as well, and I am fine with them being two separate themes.

I think it's dishonest and shows a lack of understanding of scientific principles to suggest that people have "faith" in it, or require blind adherence to anything. Lack of evidence, proof or repeatable objective observations is dismissed by the true scientific mind.

This is the polar opposite of the religious process, which requires "faith" in the absence of evidence, no possible observation or repeatable evidence.

I have always thought this is the internal dilemma for rational, objective, non-emotional men. It goes against everything they know about the world they live in, and runs opposite to their modus operandi of daily life.

Imagine for a moment my bewilderment of working with highly intelligent engineers that effectively believe in the Easter bunny.. I struggle to understand.

(04-15-2018 10:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  --I'd say if you can't take it, don't dish it out my friend.

haha Thats a fair cop guv.

(04-16-2018 10:46 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 10:56 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  how most people require translation, interpretation, of both science and religion.

Key point to note here is that you can do an experiment yourself, but you can't measure, test or religious dogma or teachings.

One could facetiously respond to that in one of two ways:

(1) As I've been saying, whilst in theory I can do an experiment myself, the reality is that I still have to take scientific insights mostly on faith. I can't independently verify the existence of the Higgs Boson for myself, I don't have a spare few billion dollars to build my own LHC and then elbow the physicists and engineers out of the drivers' chairs to throw those subatomic particles at one another. I have to rely on the integrity of those scientists. Hence, I must have faith that when a scientist says that he has seen The Risen Boson, he has done so since it's virtually impossible for me pragmatically to do the Doubting Thomas and stick my finger in the atomic gap for myself.

(Countering that my iPhone works because of quantum mechanics is not really an answer: Nassim Taleb observes in Antifragile that most progress of technology happens from engineers and inventors tinkering and finding things that work; the single most common delusion amongst academics is that lectures on avian flight results in birds flying. That is, the correct view is that people see something that happens and find an explanation for it that fits the limited set of factors that allow them to reproduce the phenomenon. Also see: that big picture above wherein science and the real world are compared. Anyway.)

(2) As said, I could facetiously also answer that the most fundamental religious dogma is testable: you can sit down and pray and see if you get an answer.

But that answer would demonstrate the issue: I believe it is disingenuous at best and misleading at worst to say "Science is testable, religion is not". The two ideas are not in conflict in that way, it's bragging that an apple is red but an orange is not and that the apple is therefore inherently superior to the orange, because of its redness.

Science does not apply where an idea is not falsifiable, period. That feature of it as a concept does not make it inherently superior as a means for navigating the world, it is just a hard limit that the discipline sets on itself. Emerging from that idea are the factors that Taleb mentions above: science is of very little use where the evidence is not (1) reliable, (2) sufficient, or (3) in the presence of a high degree of opacity.

This last factor -- opacity -- is why physics is most scientific and for the most part psychology and all other social sciences are not. We can go into this in more detail if we must, but the point is that the real world - as Taleb points out metaphorically in that picture far above - is highly opaque in that causes for events are generally multifactorial, unpredictable, and not easily discernible outside controlled circumstances, i.e. why scientific experiments typically must be designed to eliminate other intervening causes before any sort of suggestion of cause can be advanced. Science is not competent to assess causes for events outside that very narrow window, which is why it's only middlebrow populists like Dawkins who do it.

The enlightened scientific mind understands these limitations well because they are inherent to science as a discipline. With them should come a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on religious beliefs, since they are not falsifiable concepts and indeed a good contingent of scientists themselves concede there actually isn't a conflict between science and religion. A true scientist recognises that which is not falsifiable is not a matter for science or the scientific form of rigor and no more carries that approach to dealing with the vast array of matters within human experience than a man who walks on his hands for money in a circus carries that method of ambulation into his ordinary life (to abuse some Dr. Johnson).

Quote:I think it's dishonest and shows a lack of understanding of scientific principles to suggest that people have "faith" in it, or require blind adherence to anything. Lack of evidence, proof or repeatable objective observations is dismissed by the true scientific mind.

I'll repeat the point one more time: you can think that as you will, but judging people by their actions rather than the words is the best way to assess whether they have faith in something or not. People have blind faith in science because most do not understand it without an interpreter. The same feature is that of religion.

Quote:This is the polar opposite of the religious process, which requires "faith" in the absence of evidence, no possible observation or repeatable evidence.

See all the above, but also note the point I have made repeatedly through this thread and will make it again: faith has far more to do with heuristics and with the idea of commitment, loyalty, engagement. See what I've said in the past about how St. Jerome translated pistis from the Greek into fides and credo in particular.

Quote:I have always thought this is the internal dilemma for rational, objective, non-emotional men. It goes against everything they know about the world they live in, and runs opposite to their modus operandi of daily life.

Taleb has the simple answer for that:

Quote:So when we look at religion and, to some extent ancestral superstitions, we should consider what purpose they serve, rather than focusing on the notion of “belief”, epistemic belief in its strict scientific definition. In science, belief is literal belief; it is right or wrong, never metaphorical. In real life, belief is an instrument to do things, not the end product. This is similar to vision: the purpose of your eyes is to orient you in the best possible way, and get you out of trouble when needed, or help you find a prey at distance. Your eyes are not sensors aimed at getting the electromagnetic spectrum of reality. Their job description is not to produce the most accurate scientific representation of reality; rather the most useful one for survival.

The existence of God can be proven quite easily.

Everything that happens, happens for a reason. In other words, everything has a cause. Cause and effect.

The universe (and by universe, I mean literally everything that exists, not just the physical universe), has a cause. It could be the big bang or some other physical event, or it could be God.

Atheists like to argue "if God is the creator, then who created the creator?" That's a way of saying that you can't have infinite regression, and that if there's a god then that god must have a creator, therefore infinite regression, which is impossible, therefore there's no god.

But who said that God has a creator? The whole point of being God is that you have no creator because every thing is created by you, and you can't be created by one of your creations. Theists don't believe in a created God. They believe in a self-existent god. Self-existence is one of God's attributes.

So, if the universe is an effect of a cause, then what is the cause?

If it's a physical event, then you have infinite regression, because in the absence of a god, that physical event must itself be the effect of another prior physical event, ad infinitum (infinite regression - impossible).

The only resolution is a self existent thing. So, whatever the cause of the universe is, it must be self existent.

But is it conscious? Yes. If something happens, it's either because it was caused to happen, or it itself chose to happen. If something creates the universe, it can't be because it was compelled to by some other thing, because there is no other thing.

Nothing caused the ultimate cause of all things to cause anything. There's nothing that could have. This means that the cause of the universe (everything that exists) is both self-existent and conscious.

When the cause of all things causes things, it can only do so from itself. There's nothing outside of itself from which to get what it needs to create anything. It all comes from itself. Therefore the universe is a direct manifestation of its own cause. If there's a God, then the universe is its manifestation.

The cause of the universe causes all things to come into existence. This means that the cause itself doesn't exist. Does that mean that God doesn't exist? No. It means that existence in this sense means manifestation. The cause of the universe is unmanifest, and everything it creates is a manifestation (of itself).

This means that the cause of the universe is all potential. Potential : possibility, potency, power, strength. The cause of the universe is self-existent, conscious, and omnipotent.

As the cause of everything, it isn't dependent on anything, bound by anything, or subject to anything, which again makes it omnipotent, and also transcendent, mysterious (because it's not bound by logic), and incomprehensible.

Why did the cause of the universe choose to cause the universe? The only explanation is that it chose to express itself, to create a manifest version of itself. Seeing as it didn't need to do it (as it's not compelled to do anything) he only explanation for this is love.

So, the cause of the universe is :

Self-existent
Conscious
Omnipotent
Transcendent
Mysterious
Incomprehensible
Loving

All of God's other attributes can be seen the more you think about it.

(04-16-2018 10:46 PM)RatInTheWoods Wrote:  Key point to note here is that you can do an experiment yourself, but you can't measure, test or religious dogma or teachings.

Try viewing the Bible via a Social Science - the most trenchant work of human psychology and social interaction ever written.

Then work on the theory that "Oppositional actions reliably-guarantee psychological and social dysfunction".

Observe your lived experience, collect the data, and with the wisdom of age study what the data suggests.

Then, watch the theory being tested around you, day after day, and see how reliable it is.

Quote:This is the polar opposite of the religious process, which requires "faith" in the absence of evidence, no possible observation or repeatable evidence.

Climate Change is, therefore, a Religion, as are many other Progressive Beliefs that stand in opposition to observable lived experience. However, these beliefs are sold as science by whomever controls both the dissemation of information and is given teaching authority over others. This is why a lack of replicability in science has been consistently-ignored for decades - as in the case of Climate Change - when the true results would contradict the gatekeeping group's religious beliefs.

https://reformjudaism.org/jewish-views-environment

What if the ecology movement of the 70's, and the Gaia movement of the 80's were seeded as ways to make Gentiles practicing Reform Jews without their conscious knowledge of being converted?

Some friends were watching 'Black Panther' the other day. I have no interest in modern movies, but noted the isolationist rhetoric in passing as I worked around the house, then, arrived back at the end for a scene at the United Nations, where the writers were carefully programming the black community with the Reform Judaism concept of Tikkun Olam as being 'heroic', once again, not informing the audience that they are being religiously-indoctrinated.

Modern Scientific Journals are Religious Texts. As such, basing public policy upon them observably-increases societial dysfunction.

(04-21-2018 03:26 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  The universe (and by universe, I mean literally everything that exists, not just the physical universe), has a cause.

Literally everything that exists has a cause. Got it.

(04-21-2018 03:26 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  The whole point of being God is that you have no creator because every thing is created by you, and you can't be created by one of your creations.

God exists, however God does not have a cause. God has always existed.

This is not a serious effort to be logical and understand the universe. It's a sad attempt to rationalize as true that which one already believes.

(04-21-2018 07:27 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 03:26 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  The universe (and by universe, I mean literally everything that exists, not just the physical universe), has a cause.

Literally everything that exists has a cause. Got it.

(04-21-2018 03:26 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  The whole point of being God is that you have no creator because every thing is created by you, and you can't be created by one of your creations.

God exists, however God does not have a cause. God has always existed.

This is not a serious effort to be logical and understand the universe. It's a sad attempt to rationalize as true that which one already believes.

Your counter argument is well thought out, and eloquently expressed. I concede.

It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!" The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness. Sheer denial of reality. Everyone knows this, especially atheists. The atheistic worldview is not about logic, it's about rebelling against the entire concept of God. The evidence clearly and overwhelmingly (undeniably, really) points to the conclusion that our universe was created by some force far beyond our ability to comprehend. This is why you see many atheists now endorse the "multiverse" theory (saying that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be the lucky one), but this is substantially more an article of faith than the idea that the universe was simply created by a being we would refer to as God.

If you reject Christianity or Islam or Buddhism or all religions, fine. Perhaps you have your own conception of who or what God actually is. But rejecting the existence of God (meaning an all-powerful creative force) altogether is simply not a credible position. We know that God exists. The evidence is all around you and is irrefutable. There are clearly forces at work which are infinitely greater than the ability of the human mind to comprehend. The idea that even the tiniest bit of matter would spontaneously emerge out of nothingness is itself insane (as Vladimir Poontang pointed out above: you cannot logically have an uncaused cause within a closed system - you need something outside of the system to initiate anything, necessitating God). And the idea that a spontaneous uncaused cause could randomly generate complexity on the scale of the universe is literally the most insane notion that the human mind could entertain.

tl;dr Atheism is a lot more about, "Fuck you, Dad! I'll do whatever I want!" than it is, "After careful consideration of the facts and years of study, I find the existence of a creator God highly improbable." But atheists can never admit this, even to themselves.

(04-21-2018 07:45 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Your counter argument is well thought out, and eloquently expressed. I concede.

No counter-argument, I'm only pointing out that the logical contradiction is too brazen to be taken seriously.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  It continues to boggle my mind that intelligent people can look at the vast, essentially incomprehensible complexity of the universe and just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, it was all just a happy accident!"

I don't consider any aspect of reality to be an "accident," happy or otherwise. I certainly don't regard the "complexity" of the universe to be "incomprehensible." Quite the opposite: The universe (and everything in it) can absolutely be understood, can be made sense of, if man uses his powers of reason, observation & investigation.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The idea that there is no intelligent force behind the creation of the universe is literal madness.

What's madness is the idea that the universe was "created" — created by a supernatural being who somehow managed to exist antecedent to everything existing.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Sheer denial of reality.

Theists deny causality. The universe is not a realm of inexplicable miracles; it is a lawful of realm of cause and effect, one governed by natural — not supernatural — law.

(04-21-2018 07:58 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Everyone knows this, especially atheists.

"You may say that you're an atheist, but deep inside your heart, you know there is a God."

Deep inside my heart, I know there is no God. The concept is utterly untenable and, as you (and Vladimir Poontang) insist, incomprehensible.

When a theist says that God is incomprehensible, I take him at his word. If something is indeed "far beyond our ability to comprehend," why try? I simply dismiss the claim out of hand and move on.

This thread is long, forgive me if this question has already been asked in the 30 something pages so far:

My question is, where does it end?

I agree with Scorpion that it's madness to think all of this is just random.

I saw something on TV once (National Geographic Channel) where a scientists gave this example: Imagine a parasite that is living in your stomach. That parasite has no concept or idea about anything outside of your own stomach. Your stomach is that parasites world. The parasite has no clue that the host it's living in belongs to other dimensions of this world, and yet that parasite is unknowingly part of those other dimensions of this world as well.

I understand that there's an infinite amount of things that humans can just never understand, just like that parasite living in our stomach for its whole life.

But again, while I acknowledge that it's madness to think all of this is random and while I acknowledge that humans can not possibly comprehend an infinite amount of things, I still ask the question:

Where does it end? If there is no start or end line, how is that possible? Are there real world examples of things that do not start or end, they just merely are?


Vladamir mentioned something that merely "self exists" but how is that possible? I just don't understand.

What I mean is, who created God? Who created the thing/being/whatever that went on to create God? Ext. Ext.?

I really hope that when I die that if there is a God, he will help me to understand all of these life questions. I also hope he lets me view human history to see how we really evolved on this planet, maybe similar to watching a movie or something.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  As I've been saying, whilst in theory I can do an experiment myself, the reality is that I still have to take scientific insights mostly on faith.

Not letting you get away with that...

You can do experiments yourself, and when you do, you understand the importance of the process, physical proof, repeatability and remain open to challenge from a different theory, different evidence or a complete revision of your knowledge if someone does a better experiment.

Zero faith required. Polar opposite to being handed a religion with no evidence, no proof, no challenges allowed and then being given all that second hand by a human.

There is NO scientific insight that requires faith, or can not be verified, repeated or observed by yourself. If it was any of those, it wouldn't be a scientific insight....

True, if you can not be bothered to learn the science yourself, then you might like to believe others that can, but this is not the basis for science. If you got off your arse and went and learned the science - then the evidence would hold true.

No matter how much effort you make, you can not verify, repeat or verify the religious dogmas handed to you. You need faith to believe it.

Total polar opposite way of thinking and understanding the universe.

I know you are smart enough to understand how science works, and how there is zero faith involved in it. Buts your rational mind trying to justify irrational "faith" as being just as valid. Hamstering.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  (2) As said, I could facetiously also answer that the most fundamental religious dogma is testable: you can sit down and pray and see if you get an answer.

Nothing happens, for everyone who does this. repeatable, observable and verified nothing. Unless you hear voices, in which case you made need to see a mental health expert.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Science is testable, religion is not". The two ideas are not in conflict in that way

Correct, those two thought paradigms are not in conflict, and can not be compared.
They are polar opposites of the scale, apples and oranges indeed.

Thats why I take offence to "science needs faith" or "science is a religion" or atheists have dogmatic beliefs etc.

That would be as stupid as saying "religion needs evidence"

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Science does not apply where an idea is not falsifiable, period. That feature of it as a concept does not make it inherently superior as a means for navigating the world, it is just a hard limit that the discipline sets on itself. Emerging from that idea are the factors science is of very little use where the evidence is not (1) reliable, (2) sufficient, or (3) in the presence of a high degree of opacity.

Glad you understand this concept.

Science is no good at making shit up. It's no good at inventing things from your imagination and passing them off as real. In short, it's the opposite of religion - which excels at these two things.

It's not a shortcoming of science, it's a beautiful inbuilt protection for lies, falsehoods and dogma.

This DOES make it a inherently superior as a means for navigating the REAL world, and avoiding crazy ideas, ridiculous beliefs and mistakes of ignorance and stupidity.

Yes, science isn't much use when we lack evidence, proof, knowledge or repeatability. But neither is making shit up from your imagination!

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The enlightened scientific mind understands these limitations well because they are inherent to science as a discipline. With them should come a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on religious beliefs, since they are not falsifiable concepts and indeed a good contingent of scientists themselves concede there actually isn't a conflict between science and religion.

This is just ridiculous as a statement....

Because we don't know and can't prove a negative we should embrace whatever crazy assed explanation anyone comes up with, in the total absence of evidence and proof? On what planet is that a rational intelligent position to have?

You can't disprove the Easter Bunny, so we should " Come to them with them a profound humility and a philosophical refusal or reluctance to comment on their crazy, silly and ridiculous beliefs?"

No, we should ask for evidence or dismiss their flights of fancy as a conjuring of their imagination. And rightly so, less we become fools to whatever can be imagined or laughably spoken about.

(04-17-2018 12:03 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  People have blind faith in science because most do not understand it without an interpreter. The same feature is that of religion.

No. People do not have blind faith in science. They understand, as you do, that science and its methods are robust, provable and evidence based. They do not need to have faith, and they do not need an interpreter.

The opposite is true of religion - it doesn't work without blind faith, without the absence of any evidence and with total acceptance of the unprovable.

(04-21-2018 04:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Climate Change is, therefore, a Religion, as are many other Progressive Beliefs that stand in opposition to observable lived experience. However, these beliefs are sold as science by whomever controls both the dissemation of information and is given teaching authority over others. This is why a lack of replicability in science has been consistently-ignored for decades - as in the case of Climate Change - when the true results would contradict the gatekeeping group's religious beliefs.

Bad science is not a religion, although it looks the same because people are lying, trying to pass off false information, and distort evidence to suit their own self serving agenda.

The weather system of earth are complex, the timescales are huge and the evidence far from extensive.

So you can make up whatever explanation or conclusion you want, but its not science, don't be confused.

1+1 is science - enough evidence and repeatability there to stand with confidence that the answer is two, will always be two and why.

Yes bad science looks like religion.

(04-21-2018 07:59 PM)Scoundrel Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 07:45 PM)Vladimir Poontang Wrote:  Your counter argument is well thought out, and eloquently expressed. I concede.

No counter-argument, I'm only pointing out that the logical contradiction is too brazen to be taken seriously.

Yep, that ones like shooting fish in a barrel.

"god must exist because she made the universe, because nothing can create itself or have been around since the beginning of time!"

Well then by your logic, who made the god?

"He was there since the beginning of time or he made himself"

ie its turtles all the way down young man.