ADVERTISEMENT

For The Christophobes Here

I'll add that I'm not arguing philosophy. I'm arguing scientific fact.

You're a bit off here. Goat and I aren't taking umbrage with your denial of Christianity, as I don't believe in it either, but rather with your narrow-minded dismissal of the idea of God. There very may well be a God or Gods not named Buddha, Yahweh, Shiva, etc. There may be a supreme being out there that the universe has not yet come to know.

Humanity may be in a 'tweener stage of our understanding of God. Modern religions, while well intended and still wrong, are very likely just another stepping stone in the way to a greater revelation of God. Much like humanity had to evolve their understanding, and still are, of science.

Or, there may be no God. You and I don't know enough to be certain (your words). You are demonstrating the behavior of the secular movement that angers people. You are so against Christianity that you're missing the bigger picture. Again, to be so sure there is NO God is to be as stubborn and evidence-denying as those who are sure there IS a God.

ps Because you keep quoting science, check out Mr. Einstein's views regarding God. Many modern scientists will describe themselves as agnostic vice atheists because they know what they don't know and aren't "certain" (your word) absent of proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
 
You're a bit off here. Goat and I aren't taking umbrage with your denial of Christianity, as I don't believe in it either, but rather with your narrow-minded dismissal of the idea of God. There very may well be a God or Gods not named Buddha, Yahweh, Shiva, etc. There may be a supreme being out there that the universe has not yet come to know.

Humanity may be in a 'tweener stage of our understanding of God. Modern religions, while well intended and still wrong, are very likely just another stepping stone in the way to a greater revelation of God. Much like humanity had to evolve their understanding, and still are, of science.

Or, there may be no God. You and I don't know enough to be certain (your words). You are demonstrating the behavior of the secular movement that angers people. You are so against Christianity that you're missing the bigger picture. Again, to be so sure there is NO God is to be as stubborn and evidence-denying as those who are sure there IS a God.

ps Because you keep quoting science, check out Mr. Einstein's views regarding God. Many modern scientists will describe themselves as agnostic vice atheists because they know what they don't know and aren't "certain" (your word) absent of proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
While I agree with your view of the matter, I want to stress that I was only taking issue with Doc's poor use of logic and conflation of unrelated issues. Even more narrow that your criticisms (despite the fact that your criticisms are also perfectly reasonable).
 
You're a bit off here. Goat and I aren't taking umbrage with your denial of Christianity, as I don't believe in it either, but rather with your narrow-minded dismissal of the idea of God. There very may well be a God or Gods not named Buddha, Yahweh, Shiva, etc. There may be a supreme being out there that the universe has not yet come to know.

Humanity may be in a 'tweener stage of our understanding of God. Modern religions, while well intended and still wrong, are very likely just another stepping stone in the way to a greater revelation of God. Much like humanity had to evolve their understanding, and still are, of science.

Or, there may be no God. You and I don't know enough to be certain (your words). You are demonstrating the behavior of the secular movement that angers people. You are so against Christianity that you're missing the bigger picture. Again, to be so sure there is NO God is to be as stubborn and evidence-denying as those who are sure there IS a God.

ps Because you keep quoting science, check out Mr. Einstein's views regarding God. Many modern scientists will describe themselves as agnostic vice atheists because they know what they don't know and aren't "certain" (your word) absent of proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
But, Ranger, that's not the case. I HONESTLY believe that there is a scientific answer to everything....not a supernatural. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or anything in between. I simply don't believe that just because we don't currently know the answer to what I believe is a scientific question that our best and brightest explanation is to attribute it to a "god". Doesn't it seem completely absurd? I've read many books about many different cultures...all describing gods in the forms of birds, sharks, bison, and on and on.

My point is...after all this nonsense, we find out all along that there is a scientific explanation to everything. Just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean that we should attribute it to a "god". Personally, I feel these people are completely naive.
 
But, Ranger, that's not the case. I HONESTLY believe that there is a scientific answer to everything....not a supernatural. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or anything in between. I simply don't believe that just because we don't currently know the answer to what I believe is a scientific question that our best and brightest explanation is to attribute it to a "god". Doesn't it seem completely absurd? I've read many books about many different cultures...all describing gods in the forms of birds, sharks, bison, and on and on.

My point is...after all this nonsense, we find out all along that there is a scientific explanation to everything. Just because we don't understand something now doesn't mean that we should attribute it to a "god". Personally, I feel these people are completely naive.
You have a very thin understanding of what science is. Hint: science isn't naturalism, or absolutism, or monism. Science admits that there is a limit to what science can study (i.e., that which is testable). God isn't in that realm. Period. Science cannot study God. Non-overlapping magisteria, and all that. Science can't test God, because God is untestable. It is impossible to prove God exists. But, as a natural consequence of that, it is impossible to prove he doesn't exist. At least scientifically. Philosophically, you can make a case. But scientifically, no. The entire concept of God is outside the purview of science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
You have a very thin understanding of what science is. Hint: science isn't naturalism, or absolutism, or monism. Science admits that there is a limit to what science can study (i.e., that which is testable). God isn't in that realm. Period. Science cannot study God. Non-overlapping magisteria, and all that. Science can't test God, because God is untestable. It is impossible to prove God exists. But, as a natural consequence of that, it is impossible to prove he doesn't exist. At least scientifically. Philosophically, you can make a case. But scientifically, no. The entire concept of God is outside the purview of science.
Yes, and until that "concept" becomes testable, I will always side with science rather than the Great Spaghetti Monster (who is just as scientifically relevant as "god").
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjvcaj
Yes, and until that "concept" becomes testable, I will always side with science rather than the Great Spaghetti Monster (who is just as scientifically relevant as "god").

I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Do I find Christian dogma to be absurd? Mostly, yes. Would I ever legislate based off of biblical canon? Most certainly not.

But, the lack of proof for a supreme being is not the same as there being proof there is not one. I encourage you to read up on scientists' religious tendencies since you seem to only listen to "science" even though I think you have a bastardized definition of the word.

Well respected scientists are not absolutists and admit what they don't know. Why can't you?

You need to progress, in my humble opinion, past this period of spite. I had to go through it once I reached my post-brainwashing enlightenment and trust me, it's far better to admit what we don't know. Sounding so absolute that there is no God is as absurd (your word) as those that are absolute, absent evidence, that there is a God.
 
Van, I love you man but you are the world's worst debater. You heap dogma on top of dogma to argue against those that question your dogma. Were I to ask you the definition of a word, you'd likely use the word in your definition.
I'm a Bible believer. I believer from Genesis 3 till the end of Revelation there is one main message. Humankind is lost and needs to be saved. Therefore God sent His Son to die on a Cross in our place. He took the punishment that should have been ours. What we have to do with that information is to believe it. It's called Faith. The truth is you can't debate this out of me. I'd die for this belief. Now before people go crazy on me. I'd like to say that I would NOT kill for this belief. I don't have to. God provided salvation for us all and it's up to us to either accept it or reject it.
 
You have a very thin understanding of what science is. Hint: science isn't naturalism, or absolutism, or monism. Science admits that there is a limit to what science can study (i.e., that which is testable). God isn't in that realm. Period. Science cannot study God. Non-overlapping magisteria, and all that. Science can't test God, because God is untestable. It is impossible to prove God exists. But, as a natural consequence of that, it is impossible to prove he doesn't exist. At least scientifically. Philosophically, you can make a case. But scientifically, no. The entire concept of God is outside the purview of science.

I've always thought of it as science wants to know "how" everything works not "why" which leaves open the possibility of an all powerful being behind the whole thing.
 
I'm not sure how else to explain it to you. Do I find Christian dogma to be absurd? Mostly, yes. Would I ever legislate based off of biblical canon? Most certainly not.

But, the lack of proof for a supreme being is not the same as there being proof there is not one. I encourage you to read up on scientists' religious tendencies since you seem to only listen to "science" even though I think you have a bastardized definition of the word.

Well respected scientists are not absolutists and admit what they don't know. Why can't you?

You need to progress, in my humble opinion, past this period of spite. I had to go through it once I reached my post-brainwashing enlightenment and trust me, it's far better to admit what we don't know. Sounding so absolute that there is no God is as absurd (your word) as those that are absolute, absent evidence, that there is a God.
I'm an Atheist, not Agnostic. That's the difference. I admit we don't know a lot of things, much more than "we" know. But I'm certain that when the answers are obtained, it won't be a guy named Jesus, Brahman, Allah, Jupiter, Krishna or whomever. We will find out by scientific gains, just like we always have. It's ALWAYS science. It's NEVER supernatural.

Gods make people feel good, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mjvcaj
Perhaps you're not being clear.
Perhaps I am not. Try this.

Science is a methodology. It is perhaps the most important one humans have ever developed, in terms of the gaining of knowledge and real-world effects. But it is limited. By its very definition, science done properly:
1. Can only examine testable propositions.
2. Can only examine natural phenomena, and can only test natural explanations for said phenomena.
3. Can only falsify, never verify, an explanation.

Large avenues of human thought are removed entirely from the realm of science by #1. Ethics, philosophy and religion are the big ones. Now, that's not to say that ethics, philosophy and religion can't be studied scientifically. They can. But science can only examine them descriptively. There is no way to test a prescription. Even if you use science to make an argument in these fields (e.g., arguing that it is morally wrong to harm apes on account of scientific evidence they are self aware), you are using scientific knowledge, but making a non-scientific argument.

#2 follows from #1. Supernatural events are, by definition, not testable, so science cannot even consider them. All scientific theories are inherently naturalistic, but that's not because science has examined other explanations and rejected them. It is because science by definition cannot consider non-natural theories, as the methods of science are wholly unsuited to studying them. Imagine for the sake of argument that you personally witnessed a miracle. No matter how sure you would be of what you saw, science would never back you up. Even if you recorded the miracle on video. Even if you had 3,000 fellow eye witnesses. All of these things would seem to strengthen your argument that the miracle really did happen, but they would all be irrelevant to science. Science would simply say, "We can't test that," and move on.

#3 is somewhat ironic, since people often think of science in terms of facts. But, while scientists can verify facts (e.g., the existence of a particular fossil), it can never verify an explanation (e.g., common descent through natural selection). Instead, science simply allows us to identify the best explanation we have. Certain scientific theories, like evolution, are so well-backed that it's ridiculous to withhold our tentative assent, but tentative it always is. It is at least theoretically possible that someone will discover a genuine fossil of a human in Jurassic bedrock, and the entire theory will fall apart.

Because science is limited in these ways, other forms of knowing can fill in the gaps. If we want to discuss the existence of God, we use logic and philosophy. Science will not help us. When you limit what you allow your brain to consider only that which you get from science, you are cutting your mind off from all sorts of potentially rewarding intellectual exercises.
 
I'm a Bible believer. I believer from Genesis 3 till the end of Revelation there is one main message. Humankind is lost and needs to be saved. Therefore God sent His Son to die on a Cross in our place. He took the punishment that should have been ours. What we have to do with that information is to believe it. It's called Faith. The truth is you can't debate this out of me. I'd die for this belief. Now before people go crazy on me. I'd like to say that I would NOT kill for this belief. I don't have to. God provided salvation for us all and it's up to us to either accept it or reject it.
^^^See what I mean? Sounds pretty scientifically verifiable, no? :rolleyes:
 
Perhaps I am not. Try this.

Science is a methodology. It is perhaps the most important one humans have ever developed, in terms of the gaining of knowledge and real-world effects. But it is limited. By its very definition, science done properly:
1. Can only examine testable propositions.
2. Can only examine natural phenomena, and can only test natural explanations for said phenomena.
3. Can only falsify, never verify, an explanation.

Large avenues of human thought are removed entirely from the realm of science by #1. Ethics, philosophy and religion are the big ones. Now, that's not to say that ethics, philosophy and religion can't be studied scientifically. They can. But science can only examine them descriptively. There is no way to test a prescription. Even if you use science to make an argument in these fields (e.g., arguing that it is morally wrong to harm apes on account of scientific evidence they are self aware), you are using scientific knowledge, but making a non-scientific argument.

#2 follows from #1. Supernatural events are, by definition, not testable, so science cannot even consider them. All scientific theories are inherently naturalistic, but that's not because science has examined other explanations and rejected them. It is because science by definition cannot consider non-natural theories, as the methods of science are wholly unsuited to studying them. Imagine for the sake of argument that you personally witnessed a miracle. No matter how sure you would be of what you saw, science would never back you up. Even if you recorded the miracle on video. Even if you had 3,000 fellow eye witnesses. All of these things would seem to strengthen your argument that the miracle really did happen, but they would all be irrelevant to science. Science would simply say, "We can't test that," and move on.

#3 is somewhat ironic, since people often think of science in terms of facts. But, while scientists can verify facts (e.g., the existence of a particular fossil), it can never verify an explanation (e.g., common descent through natural selection). Instead, science simply allows us to identify the best explanation we have. Certain scientific theories, like evolution, are so well-backed that it's ridiculous to withhold our tentative assent, but tentative it always is. It is at least theoretically possible that someone will discover a genuine fossil of a human in Jurassic bedrock, and the entire theory will fall apart.

Because science is limited in these ways, other forms of knowing can fill in the gaps. If we want to discuss the existence of God, we use logic and philosophy. Science will not help us. When you limit what you allow your brain to consider only that which you get from science, you are cutting your mind off from all sorts of potentially rewarding intellectual exercises.
Science can "only falsify, NEVER verify" (emphasis mine)? I think you're referring to Popper and I disagree...and there are people infinitely smarter than me that can and have written extensively about it. If I stick my hand in a fire, my theory is it will burn me...but according to Popper, I haven't gone through the infinite theories of why that is, therefore it can't be proven true. Nonsense. As for your apes paragraph, who cares? I'm an Atheist, yet God or the Bible aren't telling me to take pity on an intelligent creature being locked in a cage and used for scientific experiments. I pity them because I personally love animals. I know they feel pain. Feel distress. Feel DEPRESSED. There's PLENTY of scientific knowledge about that. Google it.

Your #2) I'd love to see ANY verified video, physical, photographic....or whatever proof of any supernatural thing happening. From what I've seen...none have EVER been produced. I once read (because I was curious) on a ghost hunter web site that they had never, ever been able to verify ANY supernatural phenomenon that couldn't be explained by wind, short circuits, etc. etc. These were "professional" ghost hunters.

Your #3) While you're not completely wrong, why on Earth would anyone say hey...there's zillions of observable examples of evolution....but let's say a green cyclops in a cave on the moon made it happen? The reason is that it's stupid. The examples, as Popper agrees, are infinite.

That's why when I get cancer, I'm not going to pray to a green cyclops in a cave, the Great Spaghetti Monster, or God. I'm going to rely on S-C-I-E-N-C-E. I know you love to play the "both sides are right" guy around here, but this stuff you're describing is just absurd. INRanger I think would agree...when he or one of his brothers in the U.S. Army were injured in battle (I hope with all my heart it wasn't often), they weren't looking for some supernatural bailout, but the best that science could provide them...including the best evacuation crew, weapons to protect them when they were helping their comrade, helicopters, pilots, ambulances, doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc.

This is such a dumb discussion that I know you want to "win", but you simply won't. I don't believe in fairies, pixies, ghosts, gods, angels or any of that nonsense....even if I can't PROVE they don't exist. I'd love someone to prove they DO exist.
 
Science can "only falsify, NEVER verify" (emphasis mine)? I think you're referring to Popper and I disagree...and there are people infinitely smarter than me that can and have written extensively about it. If I stick my hand in a fire, my theory is it will burn me...but according to Popper, I haven't gone through the infinite theories of why that is, therefore it can't be proven true. Nonsense. As for your apes paragraph, who cares? I'm an Atheist, yet God or the Bible aren't telling me to take pity on an intelligent creature being locked in a cage and used for scientific experiments. I pity them because I personally love animals. I know they feel pain. Feel distress. Feel DEPRESSED. There's PLENTY of scientific knowledge about that. Google it.

Your #2) I'd love to see ANY verified video, physical, photographic....or whatever proof of any supernatural thing happening. From what I've seen...none have EVER been produced. I once read (because I was curious) on a ghost hunter web site that they had never, ever been able to verify ANY supernatural phenomenon that couldn't be explained by wind, short circuits, etc. etc. These were "professional" ghost hunters.

Your #3) While you're not completely wrong, why on Earth would anyone say hey...there's zillions of observable examples of evolution....but let's say a green cyclops in a cave on the moon made it happen? The reason is that it's stupid. The examples, as Popper agrees, are infinite.

That's why when I get cancer, I'm not going to pray to a green cyclops in a cave, the Great Spaghetti Monster, or God. I'm going to rely on S-C-I-E-N-C-E. I know you love to play the "both sides are right" guy around here, but this stuff you're describing is just absurd. INRanger I think would agree...when he or one of his brothers in the U.S. Army were injured in battle (I hope with all my heart it wasn't often), they weren't looking for some supernatural bailout, but the best that science could provide them...including the best evacuation crew, weapons to protect them when they were helping their comrade, helicopters, pilots, ambulances, doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc.

This is such a dumb discussion that I know you want to "win", but you simply won't. I don't believe in fairies, pixies, ghosts, gods, angels or any of that nonsense....even if I can't PROVE they don't exist. I'd love someone to prove they DO exist.
Okay, let me try this.

I'm not trying to have the discussion you think you're having.

I don't care about "both sides" arguments.

I'm not trying to win anything.

You don't know anything about science or epistemology. Your characterization of Popper is laughable.

None of what you're babbling about is the least bit responsive to what I actually said. What in the world did I write that would make you think I'd recommend prayer over medicine in battling cancer? Ridiculous.

You're happy in your beliefs, and that's fine. I'm not trying to change them. I'm trying to explain to you why your arrogance is unwarranted.

You're right. This discussion is dumb. But not because of why you think.
 
I've always thought of it as science wants to know "how" everything works not "why" which leaves open the possibility of an all powerful being behind the whole thing.
That's very similar to how Gould would have put it. I would instead stress that science is a method of knowing, and that it must be limited to those areas of human knowledge that are accessible with that method, but your pithy description is a decent summary (and more poetic).
 
Okay, let me try this.

I'm not trying to have the discussion you think you're having.

I don't care about "both sides" arguments.

I'm not trying to win anything.

You don't know anything about science or epistemology. Your characterization of Popper is laughable.

None of what you're babbling about is the least bit responsive to what I actually said. What in the world did I write that would make you think I'd recommend prayer over medicine in battling cancer? Ridiculous.

You're happy in your beliefs, and that's fine. I'm not trying to change them. I'm trying to explain to you why your arrogance is unwarranted.

You're right. This discussion is dumb. But not because of why you think.
Wrong. I understand everything about your post. It's just stupid. You have a hard time with that, I know. I'm not being arrogant. I just don't believe in any of the nonsense in your post.

If I'm not intelligent enough to understand your brilliant post, can you summarize the point you're trying to make in 50 words or less? Seriously...what the hell are you talking about???
 
Wrong. I understand everything about your post. It's just stupid. You have a hard time with that, I know. I'm not being arrogant. I just don't believe in any of the nonsense in your post.

If I'm not intelligent enough to understand your brilliant post, can you summarize the point you're trying to make in 50 words or less? Seriously...what the hell are you talking about???
Fine. Because I like you, I'll give it one more go. Less than 50 words:

Science is a method of gaining knowledge. It is therefore limited to those theories of the universe that are accessible through said method, i.e., falsifiable theories that posit natural explanations for natural phenomena. Other theories are non-scientific, and science cannot speak to their truth.
 
Fine. Because I like you, I'll give it one more go. Less than 50 words:

Science is a method of gaining knowledge. It is therefore limited to those theories of the universe that are accessible through said method, i.e., falsifiable theories that posit natural explanations for natural phenomena. Other theories are non-scientific, and science cannot speak to their truth.
Of course! I understood your post perfectly....but science is the best method we have.
 
No. It IS scientific because there need to "speak to god", since there is no scientific REASON or data making it compelling to consider him/her. Let's take "god" out of it. And say it's a rock on Pluto some believe oversees things on earth (or whatever religious silliness anyone believes). Must we "speak to" that rock in which some people believe? How 'bout the Comet Hale Bopp just because several deranged individuals are convinced it's the answer to all of Earth's mysteries?
 
No. It IS scientific because there need to "speak to god", since there is no scientific REASON or data making it compelling to consider him/her. Let's take "god" out of it. And say it's a rock on Pluto some believe oversees things on earth (or whatever religious silliness anyone believes). Must we "speak to" that rock in which some people believe? How 'bout the Comet Hale Bopp just because several deranged individuals are convinced it's the answer to all of Earth's mysteries?
I don't know how to make it any clearer. You are misusing science.

"Speak to" = "consider." I can't even use standard English idioms when talking to you.
 
No. I'm believing in science. I don't have to address nonsense. You don't understand. I don't/won't consider pixies and fairy tales. That doesn't mean I'm misusing science. I have MANY academics as friends...from the best universities in America and Canada. I will bounce this off of them and ask them if I'm misusing science.
 
Your problem is you think you're talking over me when you're absolutely not. It's quite funny.
 
No. I'm believing in science. I don't have to address nonsense. You don't understand. I don't/won't consider pixies and fairy tales. That doesn't mean I'm misusing science. I have MANY academics as friends...from the best universities in America and Canada. I will bounce this off of them and ask them if I'm misusing science.
But you are addressing it. You're addressing it by implying (or did you flat out directly claim?) that science proves them false. Science does no such thing, because science doesn't even consider them. Science isn't equipped to consider them. What you're actually saying is that you don't think anything outside the realm of science is even worth considering. But if that's the case, you're going to have to give up a whole lot of things that are properly examined through morals, ethics, philosophy and even politics, that exist outside the purview of science.

I remember you being a strong supporter of marriage equality. You can't defend that with science. Sure, you can use science to explain sexuality. And you can use our knowledge of sexuality to inform your opinion. But your opinion is ultimately rooted in an ethical argument that science itself cannot test. Science can't prove that marriage equality is the right thing to do. Science doesn't know how to answer that question. By your own claimed logic, you shouldn't even consider the issue at all.

You're what I'd call a political supporter of science. You like science because it agrees with you, but you don't truly understand it. But you hold it up as a paragon of human thought, and then twist and mold it to fit your other opinions, all the while convincing yourself that you're just being scientific, when you're really not. I hate to say something like this, because it's horribly cliche, but you really do fit the stereotypical model of skeptics often painted by religious fanatics; for you, science is God. You worship it, but you've also created it in your own image, bastardizing what science really is in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
Your problem is you think you're talking over me when you're absolutely not. It's quite funny.
I'm not trying to talk over you. I'm trying to engage you in a genuine conversation about epistemology and the philosophy of science, but you're flubbing even the most very basic foundations.

I don't care whatsoever what you bounce off your friends. I don't have the slightest confidence you'll accurately portray my arguments.
 
But you are addressing it. You're addressing it by implying (or did you flat out directly claim?) that science proves them false. Science does no such thing, because science doesn't even consider them. Science isn't equipped to consider them. What you're actually saying is that you don't think anything outside the realm of science is even worth considering. But if that's the case, you're going to have to give up a whole lot of things that are properly examined through morals, ethics, philosophy and even politics, that exist outside the purview of science.

I remember you being a strong supporter of marriage equality. You can't defend that with science. Sure, you can use science to explain sexuality. And you can use our knowledge of sexuality to inform your opinion. But your opinion is ultimately rooted in an ethical argument that science itself cannot test. Science can't prove that marriage equality is the right thing to do. Science doesn't know how to answer that question. By your own claimed logic, you shouldn't even consider the issue at all.

You're what I'd call a political supporter of science. You like science because it agrees with you, but you don't truly understand it. But you hold it up as a paragon of human thought, and then twist and mold it to fit your other opinions, all the while convincing yourself that you're just being scientific, when you're really not. I hate to say something like this, because it's horribly cliche, but you really do fit the stereotypical model of skeptics often painted by religious fanatics; for you, science is God. You worship it, but you've also created it in your own image, bastardizing what science really is in the process.
But you are addressing it. You're addressing it by implying (or did you flat out directly claim?) that science proves them false. Science does no such thing, because science doesn't even consider them. Science isn't equipped to consider them. What you're actually saying is that you don't think anything outside the realm of science is even worth considering. But if that's the case, you're going to have to give up a whole lot of things that are properly examined through morals, ethics, philosophy and even politics, that exist outside the purview of science.

I remember you being a strong supporter of marriage equality. You can't defend that with science. Sure, you can use science to explain sexuality. And you can use our knowledge of sexuality to inform your opinion. But your opinion is ultimately rooted in an ethical argument that science itself cannot test. Science can't prove that marriage equality is the right thing to do. Science doesn't know how to answer that question. By your own claimed logic, you shouldn't even consider the issue at all.

You're what I'd call a political supporter of science. You like science because it agrees with you, but you don't truly understand it. But you hold it up as a paragon of human thought, and then twist and mold it to fit your other opinions, all the while convincing yourself that you're just being scientific, when you're really not. I hate to say something like this, because it's horribly cliche, but you really do fit the stereotypical model of skeptics often painted by religious fanatics; for you, science is God. You worship it, but you've also created it in your own image, bastardizing what science really is in the process.

No I didn't. I said I don't believe it in any way, shape or form and that if scientists showed me "scientific" proof, I'm perfectly willing to accept that. However, there hasn't been anyone in thousands of years to prove of sprites, pixies, elves, ghosts, gods, demons, trolls, or anything of the sort. It's a dumb argument. As I said, I'm an atheist, not agnostic. Therefore, I'm not required to take the idea of Jesus riding dinosaurs around or any of that kind of nonsense as something respectable unless it is actually respectable.

Your second paragraph: What can science say about marriage at all in your field of vision? My guess is....nothing. Beyond that, I never claimed to make a scientific argument for marriage equality. My argument is if two grown adults love one another, whose business of mine is it if they want to marry?

Your next paragraph is not only off base, it's completely absurd. I'll give you a for instance, from my world. Tax Cuts and Trickle Down Economics. Who the hell WOULDN'T want a tax cut? I'd LOVE to pay less taxes. But to argue that that's what's best for the U.S. Economy is not backed up by economic/scientific data....just like a national sales tax, flat taxes, etc. I believe in what's the best evidence that science can provide over the entire spectrum of life.

And to your last point...no...I don't worship science. I don't WORSHIP anything. Except my wife. Full stop.
 
No I didn't. I said I don't believe it in any way, shape or form and that if scientists showed me "scientific" proof, I'm perfectly willing to accept that. However, there hasn't been anyone in thousands of years to prove of sprites, pixies, elves, ghosts, gods, demons, trolls, or anything of the sort. It's a dumb argument. As I said, I'm an atheist, not agnostic. Therefore, I'm not required to take the idea of Jesus riding dinosaurs around or any of that kind of nonsense as something respectable unless it is actually respectable.

I don't want you to believe in pixies, sprites, fairies or gods. I want you to understand that there are other ways to examine the universe besides science, and that, when it comes to studying the supernatural, science is not the proper method. I want you to understand that people can have intelligent conversations about whether or not God exists, and if he does, what his nature might be, but that, in order to do so, they have to leave science behind, and instead speak in the languages of logic and philosophy. I want you to understand that the arguments for and against supernatural phenomena are not necessarily dumb, because "dumb" and "non-scientific" are not synonyms.

My point with the marriage example is that you are perfectly willing to form very strong opinions about non-scientific issues, while dismissing other non-scientific issues as worthless of consideration because they are non-scientific. It's rank hypocrisy.
 
I don't want you to believe in pixies, sprites, fairies or gods. I want you to understand that there are other ways to examine the universe besides science, and that, when it comes to studying the supernatural, science is not the proper method. I want you to understand that people can have intelligent conversations about whether or not God exists, and if he does, what his nature might be, but that, in order to do so, they have to leave science behind, and instead speak in the languages of logic and philosophy. I want you to understand that the arguments for and against supernatural phenomena are not necessarily dumb, because "dumb" and "non-scientific" are not synonyms.

My point with the marriage example is that you are perfectly willing to form very strong opinions about non-scientific issues, while dismissing other non-scientific issues as worthless of consideration because they are non-scientific. It's rank hypocrisy.
"there are other ways to examine the universe besides science" is a matter of opinion...and that seems to be yours. That's okay, but it's not MY opinion. I don't care about the study of supernatural things because to me it's completely nonsense and false. There is no "proper" way to study the supernatural. In my opinion it's because there is nothing to study...beyond philosophy, demonology and religious studies (there are probably more).

Your "problem" with me is that I WON'T leave science behind. I'm not into philosophy, but logic says there is no such thing as that "stuff". Clearly dumb and non-scientific aren't synonyms, but I believe you're bright enough to know what I was getting at. Come on!

The marriage example is exactly what science has shown. Gay marriage doesn't hurt "traditional" marriage. That's a scientific fact. Look at the scientific data in Massachusetts.
 
"there are other ways to examine the universe besides science" is a matter of opinion...and that seems to be yours. That's okay, but it's not MY opinion. I don't care about the study of supernatural things because to me it's completely nonsense and false. There is no "proper" way to study the supernatural. In my opinion it's because there is nothing to study...beyond philosophy, demonology and religious studies (there are probably more).

Your "problem" with me is that I WON'T leave science behind. I'm not into philosophy, but logic says there is no such thing as that "stuff". Clearly dumb and non-scientific aren't synonyms, but I believe you're bright enough to know what I was getting at. Come on!

The marriage example is exactly what science has shown. Gay marriage doesn't hurt "traditional" marriage. That's a scientific fact. Look at the scientific data in Massachusetts.

Very simply put...you're incapable of having a philosophical conversation on the matter because you are an arrogant dick who already thinks he has all of the answers. People with such a disposition aren't very well equipped to discuss the unknown because they see the world as merely a string of "facts" that they already master. Other people don't look at the world that way, so if you'd just have started there and then let other people who enjoy discussing philosophical questions do so, this could have moved along to something more interesting a long time ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
"there are other ways to examine the universe besides science" is a matter of opinion...and that seems to be yours. That's okay, but it's not MY opinion. I don't care about the study of supernatural things because to me it's completely nonsense and false. There is no "proper" way to study the supernatural. In my opinion it's because there is nothing to study...beyond philosophy, demonology and religious studies (there are probably more).

Your "problem" with me is that I WON'T leave science behind. I'm not into philosophy, but logic says there is no such thing as that "stuff". Clearly dumb and non-scientific aren't synonyms, but I believe you're bright enough to know what I was getting at. Come on!

The marriage example is exactly what science has shown. Gay marriage doesn't hurt "traditional" marriage. That's a scientific fact. Look at the scientific data in Massachusetts.
1. No, it's not a matter of opinion. Other forms of knowledge exist besides scientific fact. That's a simple truth.

2. No, my problem with you is that you don't understand either science or knowledge, but think you're the smartest person in the room.

3. The scientific data can examine whether or not same sex marriage is harmful (as far as I can tell, it is not). It cannot tells us whether or not it should be legal. Science can't answer "should" questions. Only "is" questions. As someone who has a lot of "should" opinions, you should (!) have a better grasp of what is and isn't science.
 
No. It IS scientific because there need to "speak to god", since there is no scientific REASON or data making it compelling to consider him/her.

I'm backing up to highlight this in the hopes that I can make a point that, if it won't make sense to you, will at least be helpful to someone.

Saying there is no scientific reason or data to consider God is a completely nonsensical statement. There cannot by definition be a scientific reason or data to consider God. He's outside the realm of science. You might as well complain that there is no scientific reason or data to think that yellow is better than marshmallows. It's complete gibberish.
 
Very simply put...you're incapable of having a philosophical conversation on the matter because you are an arrogant dick who already thinks he has all of the answers. People with such a disposition aren't very well equipped to discuss the unknown because they see the world as merely a string of "facts" that they already master. Other people don't look at the world that way, so if you'd just have started there and then let other people who enjoy discussing philosophical questions do so, this could have moved along to something more interesting a long time ago.
I wish more people would have done like Ranger and jumped in. I think this could have been an interesting subject. We spend so much time here focusing on politics, but quite a few Coolerites have a strong grounding in philosophy, logic and theology.
 
Very simply put...you're incapable of having a philosophical conversation on the matter because you are an arrogant dick who already thinks he has all of the answers. People with such a disposition aren't very well equipped to discuss the unknown because they see the world as merely a string of "facts" that they already master. Other people don't look at the world that way, so if you'd just have started there and then let other people who enjoy discussing philosophical questions do so, this could have moved along to something more interesting a long time ago.

Or put another way: when a group of non-Christians are telling you that your anti-religion position is fraught with problems and a lack of logic, you should do some inwards-facing thinking.

I do sympathize a bit...along my journey to agnosticism/enlightenment I stumbled briefly where you are. Though I said the word "science" far less frequently ;)
 
I wish more people would have done like Ranger and jumped in. I think this could have been an interesting subject. We spend so much time here focusing on politics, but quite a few Coolerites have a strong grounding in philosophy, logic and theology.
It would have been a waste of time. You were trying to have a civil, respectful and logical discussion with a person that's incapable of that. It went exactly the way I (probably all of us) expected it to go. You showed a remarkable amount of patience and restraint.
 
^^^See what I mean? Sounds pretty scientifically verifiable, no? :rolleyes:
The only way science can verify the existence of God is teleological. And truly I believe science does this. As we learn more about the cosmos from the grandness of it to the tiny cells that make up it we can see the fingerprint of a grand designer. Truly unbiased people should be able to come to the conclusion that a random universe is truly a pathetic idea.
 
The only way science can verify the existence of God is teleological. And truly I believe science does this. As we learn more about the cosmos from the grandness of it to the tiny cells that make up it we can see the fingerprint of a grand designer. Truly unbiased people should be able to come to the conclusion that a random universe is truly a pathetic idea.
Science absolutely does not do that. You are making the same mistake Doc did, just landing on a different conclusion. The only way science can address teleology (if it can at all) is to describe traits of living things in an evolutionary context. All other forms of the discussion fall into philosophy, not science.
 
Science absolutely does not do that. You are making the same mistake Doc did, just landing on a different conclusion. The only way science can address teleology (if it can at all) is to describe traits of living things in an evolutionary context. All other forms of the discussion fall into philosophy, not science.
I disagree. With the appearance of design it points to a designer. Or at least it would one explainable solution as to how something got here and why it was the way it was.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT