|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 21, 2020 16:32:46 GMT
As an atheist myself I am not sure what the designated 'worldview' is or ought to be, to be honest. It is enough to lack a belief in God, or then to go on and assert that one does not exist, to be considered an atheist (the latter being admittedly an assumption, or belief by definition, since such a thing cannot be known for sure). If you mean Darwinism, one of the biggest paradigm-shifts in science of the time, then one can be (and many are) a believer all the while accepting the processes of evolution. The exception of course would be those who think that man really was 'created in God's image', when evolution would have it we are more rather descended, with other creatures, from a common ancestor. I'm talking more about how science itself can quickly turn into something like a religion if you're not careful. I'm afraid I cannot agree with you there. Science is nothing like a religion, just as religion is nothing like a science; since for one thing (as I mentioned at the start) not all beliefs and theories are the same; while it is a truism that the standard definition of a religion is one which includes veneration of the supernatural. Science is also characterised by self revision and the working through of empiricism. Unfortunately science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and the dictator is evidence. It is also not science's place to see or place subjective value in things. Any brief survey of the universe reveals that it is indeed mostly cold dark and 'empty', where things happens due to certain physical laws and relationships which can usually be discovered and not at all (for science) the guiding hand of providence. I think by this you imply "... anything which is meaningful", to which I would agree. However 'meaning', where it is discerned outside of the empirical at least, is very often subjective. But then what 'meaning' would one give to a supernova, childhood cancers or the working of the quantum? And to what, or whom ought they to mean anything? I think 'metaphysical conclusions' are not down to science but to psychology.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 21, 2020 16:36:58 GMT
I'm talking more about how science itself can quickly turn into something like a religion if you're not careful. I'm afraid I cannot agree with you there. Science is nothing like a religion, since for one thing (as I mentioned at the start) not all beliefs and theories are the same; while it is a truism that the standard definition of a religion is one which includes veneration of the supernatural. Science is also characterised by self revision and the working through of empiricism. Unfortunately science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and the dictator is evidence. It is also not science's place to see or place subjective value in things. Any brief survey of the universe reveals that it is indeed mostly cold dark and 'empty', where things happens due to certain physical laws and relationships which can usually be discovered and not at all (for science) the guiding hand of providence. I think by this you imply "... anything which is meaningful", to which I would agree. However 'meaning', where it is discerned outside of the empirical at least, is very often subjective. But then what meaning would one give to a supernova, gravitational waves or the structure of an atom? I think 'metaphysical conclusions' are not down to science but to psychology. If you would read what he wrote and understand it, you would see that he didn't say science was like a religion. He was talking about how people can turn science into a religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 21, 2020 16:44:54 GMT
I'm afraid I cannot agree with you there. Science is nothing like a religion, since for one thing (as I mentioned at the start) not all beliefs and theories are the same; while it is a truism that the standard definition of a religion is one which includes veneration of the supernatural. Science is also characterised by self revision and the working through of empiricism. Unfortunately science is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship and the dictator is evidence. It is also not science's place to see or place subjective value in things. Any brief survey of the universe reveals that it is indeed mostly cold dark and 'empty', where things happens due to certain physical laws and relationships which can usually be discovered and not at all (for science) the guiding hand of providence. I think by this you imply "... anything which is meaningful", to which I would agree. However 'meaning', where it is discerned outside of the empirical at least, is very often subjective. But then what meaning would one give to a supernova, gravitational waves or the structure of an atom? I think 'metaphysical conclusions' are not down to science but to psychology. If you would read what he wrote and understand it, you would see that he didn't say science was like a religion. He was talking about how people can turn science into a religion. And if you bothered to think about it, a science 'turned into a religion' ends up ... like a religion. Unless the meaning is that science is turned into a religion but then is not really one. In which case it is not really a religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 21, 2020 16:48:09 GMT
If you would read what he wrote and understand it, you would see that he didn't say science was like a religion. He was talking about how people can turn science into a religion. And if you bothered to think about it, a science 'turned into a religion' ends up ... like a religion. Yes, that's essentially what the man said. If you're not careful, science can become your religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 21, 2020 16:52:27 GMT
And if you bothered to think about it, a science 'turned into a religion' ends up ... like a religion.
If you're not careful, science can become your religion. But according to you a minute ago he didn't say science was like a religion. Which is it? To make science fit the definition of a 'religion' (as opposed to something pursued religiously) then one has to qualify the idea of what constitutes 'religion' almost out existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Oct 21, 2020 17:07:20 GMT
Yes, that's essentially what the man said.
If you're not careful, science can become your religion. But according to you a minute ago he didn't say science was like a religion. Which is it? To make science fit the definition of a 'religion' (as opposed to something pursued religiously) then one has to qualify the idea of what constitutes 'religion' almost out existence. You wrote:
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 21, 2020 17:15:34 GMT
But according to you a minute ago he didn't say science was like a religion. Which is it? To make science fit the definition of a 'religion' (as opposed to something pursued religiously) then one has to qualify the idea of what constitutes 'religion' almost out existence. You wrote: I repeat: either someone really 'makes of science a religion' in which case it must be considered being like a religion to judge it such, or it is not actually the case. In the same way it might be said of one that he had 'made a religion out of his drinking' but is it really a 'religion' more than just indicating a determined persistence and belief in alcohol's effect? Is not the standard definition of what constitutes a religion qualified so much in both cases, just for rhetorical purposes as to mean almost nothing? religion /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/ noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. And, as already pointed out, no one treats all beliefs equally but decides between alternatives using reason or logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 25, 2020 10:54:56 GMT
If you would read what he wrote and understand it, you would see that he didn't say science was like a religion. He was talking about how people can turn science into a religion. And if you bothered to think about it, a science 'turned into a religion' ends up ... like a religion. Unless the meaning is that science is turned into a religion but then is not really one. In which case it is not really a religion. Whenever you mention "science" you mean some ideal of what it's supposed to be, or some "definition" you made up. You speak of some theory rather than the practice. Whenever you speak of religion you speak of the practice rather that the theory. Anytime science fails you say those are no-true-scientists, but when religion fails that to you must be the definition of religion. Of course when you do that science will always "win." However that also means your mental age is about four to six years old. It also ignores that more people are duped by "science" than by religion. If one day that finally dawns on you this board would have little to discuss. It depends on the clueless atheists for traffic
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 25, 2020 12:25:50 GMT
Whenever you mention "science" you mean some ideal of what it's supposed to be, or some "definition" you made up You speak of some theory rather than the practice I fully accept that when I speak of science I have a standard definition in mind: something like 'the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.'. But not having the temerity to argue with dictionaries and 'winning', like you, I do not readily introduce my own definitions. Naturally not all science or scientists are what they claim to be (such as those pseudo-scientists who claim for Intelligent Design for instance) but that is not really a surprise. Just as not all people who claim to understand science really do (such as those who claim that Relativity is a fictional as Star Trek's warp drive or that Darwin contributed nothing to learning for instance). Again, no surprise. What is surprising is that you would claim that I think otherwise. This is a straw man. What I usually say is that science revises itself in the light of failure, through the principle of falsification - a state of working which is one of its strengths. It depends what you mean by failure. For instance the failure of religion to ever provide positive evidence for itself outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity is one thing that, arguably, defines it. Ad hominem noted. You have your opinions and as always are welcome to them. And yet here you are, provoking another spat and thereby more traffic with nothing so much to offer than a rant against me...
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 25, 2020 16:13:45 GMT
Whenever you mention "science" you mean some ideal of what it's supposed to be, or some "definition" you made up You speak of some theory rather than the practice I fully accept that when I speak of science I have a standard definition in mind: something like 'the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.'. But not having the temerity to argue with dictionaries and 'winning', like you, I do not readily introduce my own definitions. Naturally not all science or scientists are what they claim to be (such as those pseudo-scientists who claim for Intelligent Design for instance) but that is not really a surprise. Just as not all people who claim to understand science really do (such as those who claim that Relativity is a fictional as Star Trek's warp drive or that Darwin contributed nothing to learning for instance). Again, no surprise. What is surprising is that you would claim that I think otherwise. This is a straw man. What I usually say is that science revises itself in the light of failure, through the principle of falsification - a state of working which is one of its strengths. It depends what you mean by failure. For instance the failure of religion to ever provide positive evidence for itself outside of the claims of scripture and personal credulity is one thing that, arguably, defines it. Ad hominem noted. You have your opinions and as always are welcome to them. And yet here you are, provoking another spat and thereby more traffic with nothing so much to offer than a rant against me... No, you have no idea what a dictionary is even supposed to do. You still do not understand the difference between the ideal and the real. You still cheat (perhaps without the mental capacity to realize it) religion of its ideals. You still seem to believe anyone made you the arbiter of what is or is not evidence. They did not. You are not. Therefore what you say about there being "no evidence" for a god or religion is nothing but your delusion. It is not a "lack" of belief. It is the obviously mistaken belief that you can recognize evidence. You may repeat those obvious errors as often as you like. You're still wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 25, 2020 17:25:43 GMT
what you say about there being "no evidence" for a god or religion is nothing but your delusion. It is not a "lack" of belief. It is the obviously mistaken belief that you can recognize evidence. No one is cheating religion of its ideals, it is the reality of things which is the problem. The answer then is simple as always on these occasions: show the positive evidence for any purported supernatural God (as I have never said there is 'no evidence for religion' that is another strawman) that no one can deny. As has always been the case, evasion, distraction and rudeness in lieu of argument typical of your replies in the past, will be noted. Try and distinguish between the ideal and the real though - and avoid repeating obvious mistakes such as the God of the Gaps argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 25, 2020 20:02:04 GMT
what you say about there being "no evidence" for a god or religion is nothing but your delusion. It is not a "lack" of belief. It is the obviously mistaken belief that you can recognize evidence. No one is cheating religion of its ideals, it is the reality of things which is the problem. The answer then is simple as always on these occasions: show the positive evidence for any purported supernatural God (as I have never said there is 'no evidence for religion' that is another strawman) that no one can deny. As has always been the case, evasion, distraction and rudeness in lieu of argument typical of your replies in the past, will be noted. Try and distinguish between the ideal and the real though - and avoid repeating obvious mistakes such as the God of the Gaps argument. The "answer" is to tell children to shut off the internet except pages or sites assigned by their teachers or parents. Thank you for proving that with everything you post. Most of the internet is dominated by children and adults with no more sense than children. They also dominate the political process lately. That's what's wrong with it. One thing the internet has proved is that the "majority" is immature, oblivious, and demanding without qualification. It is time for the healthy adults set down some rules. It is time to develop and recognize a new majority. If there ever were people who agreed with you, there are certainly less every day, especially every day you make any of your utterly ridiculous comments, your idiotic "rules" of debate, your complete lack of self awareness, your failure to recognize any context, your self defeating theories, and your incapacity to read above an elementary level. I suspect most people who agree with you do so because they leave too much to others. Things they need to do for a living take much of their time and they have no choice but to leave some things to others. Others have let them down. You are part of that problem. When the truth is made readily available they can pick it up much faster than you. You are neither logical nor scientific, you just believe you are. As a consequence you also believe the "others" are the rude people. No, it's you. The pompous. illogical, unscientific idiot in the room is you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Oct 25, 2020 20:04:17 GMT
No one is cheating religion of its ideals, it is the reality of things which is the problem. The answer then is simple as always on these occasions: show the positive evidence for any purported supernatural God (as I have never said there is 'no evidence for religion' that is another strawman) that no one can deny. As has always been the case, evasion, distraction and rudeness in lieu of argument typical of your replies in the past, will be noted. Try and distinguish between the ideal and the real though - and avoid repeating obvious mistakes such as the God of the Gaps argument. The "answer" is to tell children to shut off the internet except pages or sites assigned by their teachers or parents. Thank you for proving that with everything you post. Most of the internet is dominated by children and adults with no more sense than children. They also dominate the political process lately. That's what's wrong with it. One thing the internet has proved is that the "majority" is immature, oblivious, and demanding without qualification. It is time for the healthy adults set down some rules. It is time to develop and recognize a new majority. If there ever were people who agreed with you, there are certainly less every day, especially every day you make any of your utterly ridiculous comments, your idiotic "rules" of debate, your complete lack of self awareness, your failure to recognize any context, your self defeating theories, and your incapacity to read above an elementary level. I suspect most people who agree with you do so because they leave too much to others. Things they need to do for a living take much of their time and they have no choice but to leave some things to others. Others have let them down. You are part of that problem. When the truth is made readily available they can pick it up much faster than you. You are neither logical nor scientific, you just believe you are. As a consequence you also believe the "others" are the rude people. No, it's you. The pompous idiot in the room is you. Evasion noted. Good luck with the traffic for those unassigned pages on your website.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 25, 2020 20:12:02 GMT
The "answer" is to tell children to shut off the internet except pages or sites assigned by their teachers or parents. Thank you for proving that with everything you post. Most of the internet is dominated by children and adults with no more sense than children. They also dominate the political process lately. That's what's wrong with it. One thing the internet has proved is that the "majority" is immature, oblivious, and demanding without qualification. It is time for the healthy adults set down some rules. It is time to develop and recognize a new majority. If there ever were people who agreed with you, there are certainly fewer every day, especially every day you make any of your utterly ridiculous comments, your idiotic "rules" of debate, your complete lack of self awareness, your failure to recognize any context, your self defeating theories, and your incapacity to read above an elementary level. I suspect most people who agree with you do so because they leave too much to others. Things they need to do for a living take much of their time and they have no choice but to leave some things to others. Others have let them down. You are part of that problem. When the truth is made readily available they can pick it up much faster than you. You are neither logical nor scientific, you just believe you are. As a consequence you also believe the "others" are the rude people. No, it's you. The pompous idiot in the room is you. Evasion noted. Good luck with the traffic for those unassigned pages on your website. I happen to be very lucky, more than I believe I deserve, but thanks anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 25, 2020 22:29:28 GMT
No one is cheating religion of its ideals, it is the reality of things which is the problem. The answer then is simple as always on these occasions: show the positive evidence for any purported supernatural God (as I have never said there is 'no evidence for religion' that is another strawman) that no one can deny. As has always been the case, evasion, distraction and rudeness in lieu of argument typical of your replies in the past, will be noted. Try and distinguish between the ideal and the real though - and avoid repeating obvious mistakes such as the God of the Gaps argument. The "answer" is to tell children to shut off the internet except pages or sites assigned by their teachers or parents. Thank you for proving that with everything you post. Most of the internet is dominated by children and adults with no more sense than children. They also dominate the political process lately. That's what's wrong with it. One thing the internet has proved is that the "majority" is immature, oblivious, and demanding without qualification. It is time for the healthy adults set down some rules. It is time to develop and recognize a new majority. If there ever were people who agreed with you, there are certainly less every day, especially every day you make any of your utterly ridiculous comments, your idiotic "rules" of debate, your complete lack of self awareness, your failure to recognize any context, your self defeating theories, and your incapacity to read above an elementary level. I suspect most people who agree with you do so because they leave too much to others. Things they need to do for a living take much of their time and they have no choice but to leave some things to others. Others have let them down. You are part of that problem. When the truth is made readily available they can pick it up much faster than you. You are neither logical nor scientific, you just believe you are. As a consequence you also believe the "others" are the rude people. No, it's you. The pompous. illogical, unscientific idiot in the room is you.   Congratulations. Messrs Dunning and Kruger would be proud of you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 26, 2020 9:24:01 GMT
The "answer" is to tell children to shut off the internet except pages or sites assigned by their teachers or parents. Thank you for proving that with everything you post. Most of the internet is dominated by children and adults with no more sense than children. They also dominate the political process lately. That's what's wrong with it. One thing the internet has proved is that the "majority" is immature, oblivious, and demanding without qualification. It is time for the healthy adults set down some rules. It is time to develop and recognize a new majority. If there ever were people who agreed with you, there are certainly less every day, especially every day you make any of your utterly ridiculous comments, your idiotic "rules" of debate, your complete lack of self awareness, your failure to recognize any context, your self defeating theories, and your incapacity to read above an elementary level. I suspect most people who agree with you do so because they leave too much to others. Things they need to do for a living take much of their time and they have no choice but to leave some things to others. Others have let them down. You are part of that problem. When the truth is made readily available they can pick it up much faster than you. You are neither logical nor scientific, you just believe you are. As a consequence you also believe the "others" are the rude people. No, it's you. The pompous. illogical, unscientific idiot in the room is you.Congratulations. Messrs Dunning and Kruger would be proud of you. I didn't mean to ignore you. You do the pompous idiot thing somewhat convincingly yourself. Not as good as FilmFlaneur though, he just might be for real. What are you going to do when the levee breaks? Have you thought about that? You do realize your game is just about up, right? People here sometimes ask me, "When are you going to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover?" They wonder what are the obstacles holding things up. It is a very good question. I wonder myself. Read the writing on the wall. One major obstacle was that many of the people who follow Trump wanted to get credit for something like that. As it turns out, more of them just want to get credit for establishing their morality by means of their guns or their "vast" numbers without acknowledging any intelligent designer. Or perhaps they are waiting for his second term to act so that what they do then can no longer be repudiated by getting voted out. Which is it? I can only guess. I wanted the credit to be shared by various political parties, various religious disciplines, various news sources, various educational or scientific organizations, and no one particular group of any kind. I still do not know whether I will get that wish. I do know the game is up soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 26, 2020 9:32:53 GMT
I didn't mean to ignore you. You do the pompous idiot thing somewhat convincingly yourself. Not as good as FilmFlaneur though, he just might be for real. What are you going to do when the levee breaks? Have you thought about that? You do realize your game is just about up, right? People here sometimes ask me, "When are you going to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover?" They wonder what are the obstacles holding things up. It is a very good question. I wonder myself. Read the writing on the wall. One major obstacle was that many of the people who follow Trump wanted to get credit for something like that. As it turns out, more of them just want to get credit for establishing their morality by means of their guns or their "vast" numbers without acknowledging any intelligent designer. Or perhaps they are waiting for his second term to act so that what they do then can no longer be repudiated by getting voted out. Which is it? I can only guess. I wanted the credit to be shared by various political parties, various religious disciplines, various news sources, various educational or scientific organizations, and no one particular group of any kind. I still do not know whether I will get that wish. I do know the game is up soon. What game is up, soon?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 26, 2020 9:46:11 GMT
I didn't mean to ignore you. You do the pompous idiot thing somewhat convincingly yourself. Not as good as FilmFlaneur though, he just might be for real. What are you going to do when the levee breaks? Have you thought about that? You do realize your game is just about up, right? People here sometimes ask me, "When are you going to overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover?" They wonder what are the obstacles holding things up. It is a very good question. I wonder myself. Read the writing on the wall. One major obstacle was that many of the people who follow Trump wanted to get credit for something like that. As it turns out, more of them just want to get credit for establishing their morality by means of their guns or their "vast" numbers without acknowledging any intelligent designer. Or perhaps they are waiting for his second term to act so that what they do then can no longer be repudiated by getting voted out. Which is it? I can only guess. I wanted the credit to be shared by various political parties, various religious disciplines, various news sources, various educational or scientific organizations, and no one particular group of any kind. I still do not know whether I will get that wish. I do know the game is up soon. What game is up, soon? Turn on your TV November 3, virtually everyone will be watching. Just try to tear yourself away. No, it isn't a war between religion and science. That war is just between the amateur scientists and the amateurs in religion. The professionals have a totally different option in the making. I congratulate the Democrats for keeping the attention focused on civil rights. I hope that works. I'll know whether it does the same time you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 26, 2020 10:20:29 GMT
Turn on your TV November 3, virtually everyone will be watching. Just try to tear yourself away. No, it isn't a war between religion and science. That war is just between the amateur scientists and the amateurs in religion. The professionals have a totally different option in the making. I congratulate the Democrats for keeping the attention focused on civil rights. I hope that works. I'll know whether it does the same time you do. Congratulations. You have a new record for fitting so many non-sequiturs into six sentences and make even less than your usual sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 26, 2020 10:24:19 GMT
Turn on your TV November 3, virtually everyone will be watching. Just try to tear yourself away. No, it isn't a war between religion and science. That war is just between the amateur scientists and the amateurs in religion. The professionals have a totally different option in the making. I congratulate the Democrats for keeping the attention focused on civil rights. I hope that works. I'll know whether it does the same time you do. Congratulations. You have a new record for fitting so many non-sequiturs into six sentences and make even less than your usual sense. Thinking outside the box.
|
|
