|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 27, 2019 6:46:59 GMT
Discussions about any "god" are fraught with uncertainties. It has been compared to explaining the color green to a blind person. There is no "literal" way to do that. If you can see green at all then I can quite "literally" inform you that the leaves on some particular tree at some particular time are green. Otherwise we are left with more poetic attempts at communication. There might be less than perfect analogies available. You might (!) be dissatisfied with the explanation, such as it is, that I can offer. I do not "expect," I already know that there are things beyond the plain sight and hearing of human eyes and ears. There are things unknown. We are left to speculate and perhaps on a good day surmise some of the details, but a full picture can be most difficult to obtain. Many "Christians" have a habit of assuming their certainty about those things is more justified than it actually is. There are indeed certainties in science, but there are many things quite beyond such science to explain. It is normal to be uncomfortable with uncertainty and many Christians choose not to face uncertainty or pretend to be more certain than they can justify. Atheists and fundamentalists are much alike that way. Atheists often claim to know the age of the Earth with more certainty than fundamentalists, but they are all fooling themselves and no one else. No one really knows exactly how old the Earth is. I do not know exactly how old the Earth is and I do not "expect" any god to tell me any time soon. This is my point. Atheists and fundamentalists are "plainspoken" in the perjorative sense of that term. They are low ranking soldiers or "grunts" who believe they or their leaders know more than is actually the case. They read at an elementary level and often misread it all. Ok, then what are you speculations about God's appearance since that was one of your criticisms.
"Atheists" don't claim to know the age of the earth...that is they don't claim to know it with any more certainty than those in the fields of Physics, geology and cosmology suggest. Even some theists believe those scientists are probably on to something and agree the earth is likely ancient. As an atheist but not an expert in the fields of science that apply to ascertaining the age of the earth, I accept with a grain of salt, so to speak, any assertions about the age of the earth. I have no basis to say they are wrong, but I am also well aware that scientific conclusions are often found to be off with new information/calculations, so I recognize that the info provided at sites such as this, while possibly right, might also be wrong. Although we both assume that the ability to speak ensures a more thorough understanding of life, I suspect there are exceptions. The ability to speak obviously can help understand many things at a distance, but those are mundane things with much similarity to common experiences. Abstract experiences, experiences that are not common, and some other experiences are not always readily communicated in words. It can even happen that the words get in the way. It is sad watching a human have more difficulty in life than a Labrador Retriever because the human uses language ineffectively, where the Labrador doesn't bother and is not confused by the process. I have already provided a rather varied if not detailed list of the most widely held notions of a god.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 27, 2019 18:56:06 GMT
That's some pretty nice spinning to try to distance my example of Renaissance art of an " image of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" from your assertion that the " concept of the old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds" is held only by simpletons. I did not say the concept was held only by simpletons. I said it was an accommodation to children. That means it was not the work of children, but the work of adults, who by the way can be capable of higher art as well. Mine is not the "spin" as you put it, yours is. I will grant though that you might not be genuinely aware that's what you're doing. Repeat this one hundred times to reinforce your delusion: This image is not of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds or it wasn't sponsored or revered by Christians. I see that things on Planet Arlon aren't so different than they are in Trump-land. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 28, 2019 10:28:59 GMT
I did not say the concept was held only by simpletons. I said it was an accommodation to children. That means it was not the work of children, but the work of adults, who by the way can be capable of higher art as well. Mine is not the "spin" as you put it, yours is. I will grant though that you might not be genuinely aware that's what you're doing. Repeat this one hundred times to reinforce your delusion: This image is not of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds or it wasn't sponsored or revered by Christians. I see that things on Planet Arlon aren't so different than they are in Trump-land. <image from Sistine Chapel> Did you know that there is nothing stopping you from growing up mentally? At least that is what I had believed. I'm starting to doubt you can. No, intelligent people do not believe "god" is an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. Yes, children and mentally retarded adults, and perhaps internet trolls, do believe that is a "literal" representation of god. It is not a "literal" representation. It is a "symbolic" representation often found in art which is often highly symbolic by its very nature. That you are incapable of seeing the difference is the problem here. Yes, some religious art is "revered" by Christians, but that in no way requires that they take it literally. Do many of them take it literally? Yes, because they are children or mentally retarded adults. Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 28, 2019 21:12:21 GMT
Repeat this one hundred times to reinforce your delusion: This image is not of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds or it wasn't sponsored or revered by Christians. I see that things on Planet Arlon aren't so different than they are in Trump-land. <image from Sistine Chapel> Did you know that there is nothing stopping you from growing up mentally? At least that is what I had believed. I'm starting to doubt you can. No, intelligent people do not believe "god" is an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. Yes, children and mentally retarded adults, and perhaps internet trolls, do believe that is a "literal" representation of god. It is not a "literal" representation. It is a "symbolic" representation often found in art which is often highly symbolic by its very nature. That you are incapable of seeing the difference is the problem here. Yes, some religious art is "revered" by Christians, but that in no way requires that they take it literally. Do many of them take it literally? Yes, because they are children or mentally retarded adults. Food for thought. Ok, you make a fair point here. I'm reminded of my own conceptions of Jesus and God when I was a Christian, and, except perhaps when I was a child, I didn't think so literally. I think one of the problems that many atheists have with understanding Christians is that there are very many of them that take a very literal interpretation of the Bible (and they tend to be among the most vocal). The Bible and most of its proponents don't seem to go out of their way to encourage a non-literal interpretation. In any case, there seem to be adults that take the Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky quite seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 28, 2019 21:32:20 GMT
Repeat this one hundred times to reinforce your delusion: This image is not of an old man with long white hair and a beard who lives in the clouds or it wasn't sponsored or revered by Christians. I see that things on Planet Arlon aren't so different than they are in Trump-land. <image from Sistine Chapel> Did you know that there is nothing stopping you from growing up mentally? At least that is what I had believed. I'm starting to doubt you can. No, intelligent people do not believe "god" is an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. Yes, children and mentally retarded adults, and perhaps internet trolls, do believe that is a "literal" representation of god. It is not a "literal" representation. It is a "symbolic" representation often found in art which is often highly symbolic by its very nature. That you are incapable of seeing the difference is the problem here. Yes, some religious art is "revered" by Christians, but that in no way requires that they take it literally. Do many of them take it literally? Yes, because they are children or mentally retarded adults. Food for thought. ...AND people in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 30, 2019 9:32:33 GMT
Did you know that there is nothing stopping you from growing up mentally? At least that is what I had believed. I'm starting to doubt you can. No, intelligent people do not believe "god" is an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. Yes, children and mentally retarded adults, and perhaps internet trolls, do believe that is a "literal" representation of god. It is not a "literal" representation. It is a "symbolic" representation often found in art which is often highly symbolic by its very nature. That you are incapable of seeing the difference is the problem here. Yes, some religious art is "revered" by Christians, but that in no way requires that they take it literally. Do many of them take it literally? Yes, because they are children or mentally retarded adults. Food for thought. ...AND people in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance! Just because people then didn't have television or aircraft doesn't mean they didn't any wisdom at all. Most people today can't change their own motor oil or install a ceiling fan. There are very different categories of wisdom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 30, 2019 10:18:19 GMT
Did you know that there is nothing stopping you from growing up mentally? At least that is what I had believed. I'm starting to doubt you can. No, intelligent people do not believe "god" is an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. Yes, children and mentally retarded adults, and perhaps internet trolls, do believe that is a "literal" representation of god. It is not a "literal" representation. It is a "symbolic" representation often found in art which is often highly symbolic by its very nature. That you are incapable of seeing the difference is the problem here. Yes, some religious art is "revered" by Christians, but that in no way requires that they take it literally. Do many of them take it literally? Yes, because they are children or mentally retarded adults. Food for thought. Ok, you make a fair point here. I'm reminded of my own conceptions of Jesus and God when I was a Christian, and, except perhaps when I was a child, I didn't think so literally. I think one of the problems that many atheists have with understanding Christians is that there are very many of them that take a very literal interpretation of the Bible (and they tend to be among the most vocal). The Bible and most of its proponents don't seem to go out of their way to encourage a non-literal interpretation. In any case, there seem to be adults that take the Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky quite seriously. Although the term "plainspoken" is sometimes used in a pejorative sense correctly, being plainspoken is beneficial and preferred in many circumstances. Many issues in society should be settled in an unambiguous way that is clear to all people. News writing is necessarily "artless" in that sense. Everyone needs to know what happened. That's all, just the plain facts. The underlying causes might not be readily available or muddled by lies or misunderstanding. Children need to learn to be plainspoken first. Only after can they learn more artful methods. Elementary school children are typically not taught to debate. It is best if they just accept as facts the basic foundation they will need later to debate anything else. Without that foundation they are in no position to debate the issues in society at large. Testimony in court needs to be plain and unambiguous. Like a good novice journalist Wikipedia deals in facts without assigning any meaning to them. That's why people use it. There are times when Wikipedia strays beyond that and repeats things that are not as certain as portrayed, usually with things on the frontiers of math and science. Although religious radio takes "lessons" from Bible stories, it usually operates like most news media at a low reading level with a healthy proportion of simple facts. Many people on this board believe they have reasoned out their opinions when in fact they have never advanced to a level where they can. They continue as in early grades in school to repeat mindlessly, only following a herd instead of a teacher. An example is how they repeat "correlation is not causation." Actually there usually is causation for almost everything. That people have free choice can mean this number or that happens with no apparent cause, but those things are not often the reason for an investigation. If something is being investigated there are suspected causes and those can be more or less strongly identified by careful surveys. I meant to answer you earlier but several real life things needed more attention than usual.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Apr 30, 2019 14:57:03 GMT
Ok, you make a fair point here. I'm reminded of my own conceptions of Jesus and God when I was a Christian, and, except perhaps when I was a child, I didn't think so literally. I think one of the problems that many atheists have with understanding Christians is that there are very many of them that take a very literal interpretation of the Bible (and they tend to be among the most vocal). The Bible and most of its proponents don't seem to go out of their way to encourage a non-literal interpretation. In any case, there seem to be adults that take the Noah's Ark theme park in Kentucky quite seriously. Although the term "plainspoken" is sometimes used in a pejorative sense correctly, being plainspoken is beneficial and preferred in many circumstances. Many issues in society should be settled in an unambiguous way that is clear to all people. News writing is necessarily "artless" in that sense. Everyone needs to know what happened. That's all, just the plain facts. The underlying causes might not be readily available or muddled by lies or misunderstanding. Children need to learn to be plainspoken first. Only after can they learn more artful methods. Elementary school children are typically not taught to debate. It is best if they just accept as facts the basic foundation they will need later to debate anything else. Without that foundation they are in no position to debate the issues in society at large. Testimony in court needs to be plain and unambiguous. Like a good novice journalist Wikipedia deals in facts without assigning any meaning to them. That's why people use it. There are times when Wikipedia strays beyond that and repeats things that are not as certain as portrayed, usually with things on the frontiers of math and science. Although religious radio takes "lessons" from Bible stories, it usually operates like most news media at a low reading level with a healthy proportion of simple facts. Many people on this board believe they have reasoned out their opinions when in fact they have never advanced to a level where they can. They continue as in early grades in school to repeat mindlessly, only following a herd instead of a teacher. An example is how they repeat "correlation is not causation." Actually there usually is causation for almost everything. That people have free choice can mean this number or that happens with no apparent cause, but those things are not often the reason for an investigation. If something is being investigated there are suspected causes and those can be more or less strongly identified by careful surveys. I meant to answer you earlier but several real life things needed more attention than usual. One thing for sure is that in this world there is no shortage of people that overestimate their grasp of truth. It's so much easier to spot in others than in ourselves. I see it all the time on these forums and elsewhere. Not being so sure of oneself and questioning one's own competence are important first steps toward a more objective understanding of one's abilities and limitations. In my opinion (and those of many others), the methods of science (at least at its best) are most suited to overcome these limitations, by marginalizing the role of personal opinion or dogma and relying instead on observation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2019 6:10:55 GMT
Although the term "plainspoken" is sometimes used in a pejorative sense correctly, being plainspoken is beneficial and preferred in many circumstances. Many issues in society should be settled in an unambiguous way that is clear to all people. News writing is necessarily "artless" in that sense. Everyone needs to know what happened. That's all, just the plain facts. The underlying causes might not be readily available or muddled by lies or misunderstanding. Children need to learn to be plainspoken first. Only after can they learn more artful methods. Elementary school children are typically not taught to debate. It is best if they just accept as facts the basic foundation they will need later to debate anything else. Without that foundation they are in no position to debate the issues in society at large. Testimony in court needs to be plain and unambiguous. Like a good novice journalist Wikipedia deals in facts without assigning any meaning to them. That's why people use it. There are times when Wikipedia strays beyond that and repeats things that are not as certain as portrayed, usually with things on the frontiers of math and science. Although religious radio takes "lessons" from Bible stories, it usually operates like most news media at a low reading level with a healthy proportion of simple facts. Many people on this board believe they have reasoned out their opinions when in fact they have never advanced to a level where they can. They continue as in early grades in school to repeat mindlessly, only following a herd instead of a teacher. An example is how they repeat "correlation is not causation." Actually there usually is causation for almost everything. That people have free choice can mean this number or that happens with no apparent cause, but those things are not often the reason for an investigation. If something is being investigated there are suspected causes and those can be more or less strongly identified by careful surveys. I meant to answer you earlier but several real life things needed more attention than usual. One thing for sure is that in this world there is no shortage of people that overestimate their grasp of truth. It's so much easier to spot in others than in ourselves. I see it all the time on these forums and elsewhere. Not being so sure of oneself and questioning one's own competence are important first steps toward a more objective understanding of one's abilities and limitations. In my opinion (and those of many others), the methods of science (at least at its best) are most suited to overcome these limitations, by marginalizing the role of personal opinion or dogma and relying instead on observation. Going into the election season there is a "lean toward" (for lack of better description) science. That is partly Trump's fault. He does not represent religion well. He also does not represent capitalism well, but that's another topic. Ordinarily religion fares much better. The faith you don't realize you have is the worst faith there is. People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has. Ordinarily people who believe in a god are perfectly aware they can't do anything miraculous, that there is little or no evidence for their beliefs, that theirs are indeed beliefs. People who will believe in mind reading so long as the claim is based on what they think is "science" are on this board and you can see how wrong blind faith in science can go. A desire to rule the world doesn't make anyone scientific at heart or better at math, it just makes makes them invoke the most powerful thing they can imagine, which to them is "science," but they aren't any good at real science because they don't have the heart of a scientist. Science can be powerful and have the last word in some disputes, but not on most issues in society. I've said it many times, but here it is again. If everyone agrees they want to build a birdhouse, science can help. It can even help attract a specific kind of bird. If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do. Most issues in society arise because people cannot agree on what must be done and science is really useless in politics. I suspect that when you develop the true heart of a scientist you will realize that religion is a good and necessary thing. You will realize that Donald Trump is not religious. You will realize that there are many important things even science cannot do.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 2, 2019 14:53:12 GMT
One thing for sure is that in this world there is no shortage of people that overestimate their grasp of truth. It's so much easier to spot in others than in ourselves. I see it all the time on these forums and elsewhere. Not being so sure of oneself and questioning one's own competence are important first steps toward a more objective understanding of one's abilities and limitations. In my opinion (and those of many others), the methods of science (at least at its best) are most suited to overcome these limitations, by marginalizing the role of personal opinion or dogma and relying instead on observation. Going into the election season there is a "lean toward" (for lack of better description) science. That is partly Trump's fault. He does not represent religion well. He also does not represent capitalism well, but that's another topic. Ordinarily religion fares much better. The faith you don't realize you have is the worst faith there is. People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has. Ordinarily people who believe in a god are perfectly aware they can't do anything miraculous, that there is little or no evidence for their beliefs, that theirs are indeed beliefs. People who will believe in mind reading so long as the claim is based on what they think is "science" are on this board and you can see how wrong blind faith in science can go. A desire to rule the world doesn't make anyone scientific at heart or better at math, it just makes makes them invoke the most powerful thing they can imagine, which to them is "science," but they aren't any good at real science because they don't have the heart of a scientist. Science can be powerful and have the last word in some disputes, but not on most issues in society. I've said it many times, but here it is again. If everyone agrees they want to build a birdhouse, science can help. It can even help attract a specific kind of bird. If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do. Most issues in society arise because people cannot agree on what must be done and science is really useless in politics. I suspect that when you develop the true heart of a scientist you will realize that religion is a good and necessary thing. You will realize that Donald Trump is not religious. You will realize that there are many important things even science cannot do. Without going into your irrelevant asides about politics or this "true heart of a scientist" nonsense, I'll make these points: 1) " People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has." -- this is completely wrong. Science requires far less faith than religion, in fact that is the point of science. Instead of needing to accept some kind of divine revelation or other mumbo jumbo from some authority figure on faith, science provides arguments based on experiments, often ones that anyone can perform and even more often can be understood by laymen. The only faith required of science is an assumption that there is consistency in the universe, far far less than what is required in Christianity, for example. 2) " If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do." Replace "science" with "religion" and you're still saying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2019 21:54:21 GMT
Going into the election season there is a "lean toward" (for lack of better description) science. That is partly Trump's fault. He does not represent religion well. He also does not represent capitalism well, but that's another topic. Ordinarily religion fares much better. The faith you don't realize you have is the worst faith there is. People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has. Ordinarily people who believe in a god are perfectly aware they can't do anything miraculous, that there is little or no evidence for their beliefs, that theirs are indeed beliefs. People who will believe in mind reading so long as the claim is based on what they think is "science" are on this board and you can see how wrong blind faith in science can go. A desire to rule the world doesn't make anyone scientific at heart or better at math, it just makes makes them invoke the most powerful thing they can imagine, which to them is "science," but they aren't any good at real science because they don't have the heart of a scientist. Science can be powerful and have the last word in some disputes, but not on most issues in society. I've said it many times, but here it is again. If everyone agrees they want to build a birdhouse, science can help. It can even help attract a specific kind of bird. If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do. Most issues in society arise because people cannot agree on what must be done and science is really useless in politics. I suspect that when you develop the true heart of a scientist you will realize that religion is a good and necessary thing. You will realize that Donald Trump is not religious. You will realize that there are many important things even science cannot do. Without going into your irrelevant asides about politics or this "true heart of a scientist" nonsense, I'll make these points: 1) " People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has." -- this is completely wrong. Science requires far less faith than religion, in fact that is the point of science. Instead of needing to accept some kind of divine revelation or other mumbo jumbo from some authority figure on faith, science provides arguments based on experiments, often ones that anyone can perform and even more often can be understood by laymen. The only faith required of science is an assumption that there is consistency in the universe, far far less than what is required in Christianity, for example. 2) " If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do." Replace "science" with "religion" and you're still saying the same thing. It doesn't have to provide anything lately. Too many people accept as "science" almost anything claiming to be. I gave a recent example of mind reading. Perhaps you are not paying attention to the news. There are lots of things in politics that are a problem because people believe science has answers it does not. You perhaps need to get out more. Your concept of "religion" is terribly distorted. Do you think Trump followers are "religious"? They are definitely not. They just want to be rulers. They'll take any excuse they can get away with. Since they are incapable of science they'll take whatever they think they can get instead, like nationalism. They don't actually try religion because they don't have any themselves. You have what religion "fails" to do wrong in the example of the birdhouse/lawn sprinkler/badminton court scenario. It does not force any decision on anyone, that much is true. That however is not a failing. It doesn't try to force a decision on anyone. People who believe in science do try to force decisions on others in the name of science, but without real science to support them. You are still trying to be the "boss" (or a low ranking soldier for the boss) through science and still can't see how futile that is. You had obvious difficulty understanding artistic (not literal) representations of a god. In your latest reply you actually assumed people incapable of science can somehow manage it. That isn't working, and you shouldn't be surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 2, 2019 22:06:09 GMT
Without going into your irrelevant asides about politics or this "true heart of a scientist" nonsense, I'll make these points: 1) " People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has." -- this is completely wrong. Science requires far less faith than religion, in fact that is the point of science. Instead of needing to accept some kind of divine revelation or other mumbo jumbo from some authority figure on faith, science provides arguments based on experiments, often ones that anyone can perform and even more often can be understood by laymen. The only faith required of science is an assumption that there is consistency in the universe, far far less than what is required in Christianity, for example. 2) " If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do." Replace "science" with "religion" and you're still saying the same thing. It doesn't have to provide anything lately. Too many people accept as "science" almost anything claiming to be. I gave a recent example of mind reading. Perhaps you are not paying attention to the news. There are lots of things in politics that are a problem because people believe science has answers it does not. You perhaps need to get out more. Your concept of "religion" is terribly distorted. Do you think Trump followers are "religious"? They are definitely not. They just want to be rulers. They'll take any excuse they can get away with. Since they are incapable of science they'll take whatever they they think they can get instead, like nationalism. They don't actually try religion because they don't have any themselves. You have what religion "fails" to do wrong in the example of the birdhouse/lawn sprinkler/badminton court scenario. It does not force any decision on anyone, that much is true. That however is not a failing. It doesn't try to force a decision on anyone. People who believe in science do try to force decisions on others in the name of science, but without real science to support them. You are still trying to be the "boss" (or a low ranking soldier for the boss) through science and still can't see how futile that is. You had obvious difficulty understanding artistic (not literal) representations of a god. In your latest reply you actually assumed people incapable of science can somehow manage it. That isn't working, and you shouldn't be surprised. I have said it before and I will say it again. You would not know science if it bit you on the arse! What I also know is that it is your 'bogeyman'. Science, facts, scientific method, analysis and accumulated scientific human knowledge, stands between you and all your crackpot theories of Creationism and denial of medical issues and other scientific benefits to society, yet here you are typing on a computer and using all the accoutrements of modern life brought to you by the science of which you are completely ignorant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2019 22:23:36 GMT
It doesn't have to provide anything lately. Too many people accept as "science" almost anything claiming to be. I gave a recent example of mind reading. Perhaps you are not paying attention to the news. There are lots of things in politics that are a problem because people believe science has answers it does not. You perhaps need to get out more. Your concept of "religion" is terribly distorted. Do you think Trump followers are "religious"? They are definitely not. They just want to be rulers. They'll take any excuse they can get away with. Since they are incapable of science they'll take whatever they think they can get instead, like nationalism. They don't actually try religion because they don't have any themselves. You have what religion "fails" to do wrong in the example of the birdhouse/lawn sprinkler/badminton court scenario. It does not force any decision on anyone, that much is true. That however is not a failing. It doesn't try to force a decision on anyone. People who believe in science do try to force decisions on others in the name of science, but without real science to support them. You are still trying to be the "boss" (or a low ranking soldier for the boss) through science and still can't see how futile that is. You had obvious difficulty understanding artistic (not literal) representations of a god. In your latest reply you actually assumed people incapable of science can somehow manage it. That isn't working, and you shouldn't be surprised. I have said it before and I will say it again. You would not know science if it bit you on the arse! What I also know is that it is your 'bogeyman'. Science, facts, scientific method, analysis and accumulated scientific human knowledge, stands between you and all your crackpot theories of Creationism and denial of medical issues and other scientific benefits to society, yet here you are typing on a computer and using all the accoutrements of modern life brought to you by the science of which you are completely ignorant. What exactly is your claim to being a scientist? What original idea have you ever had or tested? What original comment have you ever made? Or do you just mindlessly repeat things?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 2, 2019 22:34:30 GMT
I have said it before and I will say it again. You would not know science if it bit you on the arse! What I also know is that it is your 'bogeyman'. Science, facts, scientific method, analysis and accumulated scientific human knowledge, stands between you and all your crackpot theories of Creationism and denial of medical issues and other scientific benefits to society, yet here you are typing on a computer and using all the accoutrements of modern life brought to you by the science of which you are completely ignorant. What exactly is your claim to being a scientist? What original idea have you ever had or tested? What original comment have you ever made? Or do you just mindlessly repeat things? You see, that is the REALLY cool thing about science. They have this system of cumulative knowledge and things called books, scientific papers and peer reviews where they all get together and compare notes and apply new ideas to their own work, or sphere of interest. ANYONE can read about it, if they have a sufficient reading ability and intellect which understands logic and the step by step system of scientific method. You should try it some time! it is really cool and time saving. Books have been around awhile, science text books slightly shorter, and now with the internet, one can get access to the real cutting edge stuff There is a vast compendium of scientific knowledge. I should know, my daughter works for a firm that actually runs subscriptions for medical institutions hospitals specialist doctors etc etc etc so that they can keep up with the ideas and amazing work of others and apply it to their own sphere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2019 22:39:26 GMT
What exactly is your claim to being a scientist? What original idea have you ever had or tested? What original comment have you ever made? Or do you just mindlessly repeat things? You see, that is the REALLY cool thing about science. They have this system of cumulative knowledge and things called books, scientific papers and peer reviews where they all get together and compare notes and apply new ideas to their own work, or sphere of interest. ANYONE can read about it, if they have a sufficient reading ability and intellect which understands logic and the step by step system of scientific method. You should try it some time! it is really cool and time saving. Books have been around awhile, science text books slightly shorter, and now with the internet, one can get access to the real cutting edge stuff There is a vast compendium of scientific knowledge. I should know, my daughter works for a firm that actually runs subscriptions for medical institutions hospitals specialist doctors etc etc etc so that they can keep up with the ideas and amazing work of others and apply it to their own sphere. So the really cool thing about science is that you have none of your own. Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 2, 2019 23:09:53 GMT
You see, that is the REALLY cool thing about science. They have this system of cumulative knowledge and things called books, scientific papers and peer reviews where they all get together and compare notes and apply new ideas to their own work, or sphere of interest. ANYONE can read about it, if they have a sufficient reading ability and intellect which understands logic and the step by step system of scientific method. You should try it some time! it is really cool and time saving. Books have been around awhile, science text books slightly shorter, and now with the internet, one can get access to the real cutting edge stuff There is a vast compendium of scientific knowledge. I should know, my daughter works for a firm that actually runs subscriptions for medical institutions hospitals specialist doctors etc etc etc so that they can keep up with the ideas and amazing work of others and apply it to their own sphere. So the really cool thing about science is that you have none of your own. Why am I not surprised? Why would I need to if I can read all about the work that scientists have accumulated over the years with resources beyond my wildest dreams? I can't believe that you don't understand this! I studied science for six years at school, physics chemistry and biology with some University training in psychology and statistical method, sociology and anthropology….quite enough for me to be able to read and understand the science of others. If I don't I research it. I commend it to you. GREAT system, fantastic system. Just think if we all had to go back to burning potassium adding acids to things every time we wanted to research anything......it is patently laughable....as are you, for being such a stupid old fossil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 2, 2019 23:13:47 GMT
So the really cool thing about science is that you have none of your own. Why am I not surprised? Why would I need to if I can read all about the work that scientists have accumulated over the years with resources beyond my wildest dreams? I can't believe that you don't understand this! I studied science for six years at school, physics chemistry and biology with some University training in psychology and statistical method, sociology and anthropology….quite enough for me to be able to read and understand the science of others. If I don't I research it. I commend it to you. GREAT system, fantastic system. Just think if we all had to go back to burning potassium adding acids to things every time we wanted to research anything......it is patently laughable....as are you, for being such a stupid old fossil. If scientific advances really happen everyday, why aren't any of those yours? It is a fair question.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 2, 2019 23:46:23 GMT
Why would I need to if I can read all about the work that scientists have accumulated over the years with resources beyond my wildest dreams? I can't believe that you don't understand this! I studied science for six years at school, physics chemistry and biology with some University training in psychology and statistical method, sociology and anthropology….quite enough for me to be able to read and understand the science of others. If I don't I research it. I commend it to you. GREAT system, fantastic system. Just think if we all had to go back to burning potassium adding acids to things every time we wanted to research anything......it is patently laughable....as are you, for being such a stupid old fossil. If scientific advances really happen everyday, why aren't any of those yours? It is a fair question. Can you REALLY be this stupid? I am not, have never claimed to be and don't ever intend being a scientist. HOWEVER I have an interest in, and educational and intelligence level to be able to appreciate and understand the work of 'scientists'. DUH! Unlike you.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 3, 2019 0:13:29 GMT
Without going into your irrelevant asides about politics or this "true heart of a scientist" nonsense, I'll make these points: 1) " People who believe in science don't realize theirs is as much faith as anyone else has." -- this is completely wrong. Science requires far less faith than religion, in fact that is the point of science. Instead of needing to accept some kind of divine revelation or other mumbo jumbo from some authority figure on faith, science provides arguments based on experiments, often ones that anyone can perform and even more often can be understood by laymen. The only faith required of science is an assumption that there is consistency in the universe, far far less than what is required in Christianity, for example. 2) " If people cannot decide whether to build a birdhouse, a lawn sprinkler or a badminton court there is really nothing science can do." Replace "science" with "religion" and you're still saying the same thing. It doesn't have to provide anything lately. Too many people accept as "science" almost anything claiming to be. I gave a recent example of mind reading. Perhaps you are not paying attention to the news. There are lots of things in politics that are a problem because people believe science has answers it does not. You perhaps need to get out more. Your concept of "religion" is terribly distorted. Do you think Trump followers are "religious"? They are definitely not. They just want to be rulers. They'll take any excuse they can get away with. Since they are incapable of science they'll take whatever they think they can get instead, like nationalism. They don't actually try religion because they don't have any themselves. You have what religion "fails" to do wrong in the example of the birdhouse/lawn sprinkler/badminton court scenario. It does not force any decision on anyone, that much is true. That however is not a failing. It doesn't try to force a decision on anyone. People who believe in science do try to force decisions on others in the name of science, but without real science to support them. You are still trying to be the "boss" (or a low ranking soldier for the boss) through science and still can't see how futile that is. You had obvious difficulty understanding artistic (not literal) representations of a god. In your latest reply you actually assumed people incapable of science can somehow manage it. That isn't working, and you shouldn't be surprised. If there are many people that confuse Youtube videos and other sources of pseudo-science, that doesn't change the qualities of real science or the level of faith required to engage in it. If people believe that they don't need to concern themselves with the latest measles outbreak it isn't because the science is faulty. My point stands that science requires far less faith than religion. I haven't brought up Trump's relationship with religion, but as long as you mention it, one of Trump's most important constituents is the American religious right, with leaders like Franklin Graham constantly defending the President. Perhaps you can argue that Billy Graham's son is a complete hypocrite but are you prepared to claim that all or even many of the religious right are insincere in their beliefs in God? So you say "people who believe in science do try to force decisions on others in the name of science". Do you mean all of them or some fraction? And you think that science followers try to force decisions more than religion followers? Now that's a good one!
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on May 3, 2019 0:22:46 GMT
Why would I need to if I can read all about the work that scientists have accumulated over the years with resources beyond my wildest dreams? I can't believe that you don't understand this! I studied science for six years at school, physics chemistry and biology with some University training in psychology and statistical method, sociology and anthropology….quite enough for me to be able to read and understand the science of others. If I don't I research it. I commend it to you. GREAT system, fantastic system. Just think if we all had to go back to burning potassium adding acids to things every time we wanted to research anything......it is patently laughable....as are you, for being such a stupid old fossil. If scientific advances really happen everyday, why aren't any of those yours? It is a fair question. No it isn't. It's like saying that one can't understand sports or politics unless one is an athlete or politician.
|
|
