Atheism and religious hate

[Grimlundt]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

You're using a computer... while saying science cannot be proven. Riiiight.

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

No atheist claims to have all the answers. Whining over nothing.

So you first try the objection from hypocrisy.
how can you say cigarttes are bad and still smoke?
That's a fallacy

Secondly,
Maybe there is a difference between absolute 100% certain truth and performativity?

[CVT Temp]

Choose your truth conditions.
let's be Popperian?

I grant you that science is less systematic than they teach at school (Feyerabend's point?)

But is that really your defense against my characterization of our present episteme?

Please try and come to terms with my case, instead of going into semantics

I think my criticism addresses your point perfectly. The fact that even methodology itself is very flexible to changes in knowledge, thought, technology, theory, etc. shows that statements such as "Science cannot address X." can only be valid w.r.t. science at some fixed point. If X is a valid form of discussion, and not simply a result of linguistic confusion a la Wittgenstein, there's no reason why science should forever be closed to such questions. Therefore, talking about something as a "non-scientific question" is, I think, an overly presumptuous prediction about the future evolution of science.

[Dracone]

*sigh* I posted a big long post and my internet glitched and I lost it but didnt realize it... but it doesnt really matter. I made that point about the difference as a side not... the main point was what most of you appear to assume is the sidenote... asking why there was no "Im a theist and I welcome the tide" option... Im not here to debate, itsays in the bible that it is a sin to try and convert people who dont want it... plus if I were gonna debate, I wouldnt do it online because it rarely if ever does anything.

Perhaps you should just use it to organize and bounce your thoughts around.

I'm still here reading... but I dont want to join in... I dont like debating religion period, doesnt matter where. If I can convince you to change your beleifs in the first place, then your not firmly enough in your beleif that God will accept it anyways...

[Grimlundt]

That's the thing.
Shamanism does work.
It is observably powerful.
My opinion ... it's the placebo effect.
But magic IS(to some extent) based on observations.

That's why the Azande only trusted the Chicken Oracle.
Religion was -- in part -- the science we had before religion.
Fraser convincingly argues that priestly begging for gods to have mercy replaces magic because the magician fails to deliver the rain. The priest promises nothing ... he can always say, the gods are still pissed off, or testing us ... yada yada
A magician on the other hand will tarred and feathered if his promises do not come true?

Kinda. But non-applied science doesn't promise anything either. That is more of an aspect of engineering, a.k.a. applied science.
The practice of medicine, with or without religious overtures, is more closly related to science than religion.

However, science does something that religion doesn't ever really do. It restricts it's claims to things we can observe, and is ok with admitting that it was wrong about the causality of some event, but it is closer to figuring it out. Science is the search for knowledge. Religion is generally the assertion of it.

[Mavorpen]

So you first try the objection from hypocrisy.
how can you say cigarttes are bad and still smoke?
That's a fallacy

Could you put some effort into making your posts sensible? Seriously, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your analogy is shit because it has nothing to do with my point. You're using a computer, something that would ONLY work if we could "prove science."

Secondly,
Maybe there is a difference between absolute 100% certain truth and performativity?

And?

[Grimlundt]

Well
You did not answer my question about the fixed axiom of reproducibility.
Also, would you agree that science will always rely on falsifiability? No matter how long science lasts?

Choose your truth conditions.
let's be Popperian?

I grant you that science is less systematic than they teach at school (Feyerabend's point?)

But is that really your defense against my characterization of our present episteme?

Please try and come to terms with my case, instead of going into semantics

I think my criticism addresses your point perfectly. The fact that even methodology itself is very flexible to changes in knowledge, thought, technology, theory, etc. shows that statements such as "Science cannot address X." can only be valid w.r.t. science at some fixed point. If X is a valid form of discussion, and not simply a result of linguistic confusion a la Wittgenstein, there's no reason why science should forever be closed to such questions. Therefore, talking about something as a "non-scientific question" is, I think, an overly presumptuous prediction about the future evolution of science.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So you first try the objection from hypocrisy.
how can you say cigarttes are bad and still smoke?
That's a fallacy

Could you put some effort into making your posts sensible? Seriously, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your analogy is shit because it has nothing to do with my point. You're using a computer, something that would ONLY work if we could "prove science."

I've asked him repeatedly. He hasn't made them any more easily understood.

[CVT Temp]

Well
An experiment must be able to be duplicated to be called good science?
Is this a fixed axiom?

No. Plenty of good science in cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc. doesn't always involve easily or plausibly repeatable phenomena. Repeatability is just a good thing to have whenever possible because it makes your claims much more likely to be valid.

As long as the observations can be shared and cross-verified, no problem exists.

[Grimlundt]

So you first try the objection from hypocrisy.
how can you say cigarttes are bad and still smoke?
That's a fallacy

Could you put some effort into making your posts sensible? Seriously, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your analogy is shit because it has nothing to do with my point. You're using a computer, something that would ONLY work if we could "prove science."

Secondly,
Maybe there is a difference between absolute 100% certain truth and performativity?

And?

Um. You seem to think that science must be 100% true and certain because you have the internet.
That's NOT what Popper says -- and NO professional scientists would say so.

[Grimlundt]

Well
An experiment must be able to be duplicated to be called good science?
Is this a fixed axiom?

No. Plenty of good science in cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc. doesn't always involve easily or plausibly repeatable phenomena. Repeatability is just a good thing to have whenever possible because it makes your claims much more likely to be valid.

As long as the observations can be shared and cross-verified, no problem exists.

Thanks. I will bow to your expertise and grant you that point.
How about falsifiability

[Seperates]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

Now I have NO PROBLEM with science
Just the arrogance of some atheists who see themselves as "scientists"

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

I am an anthropology major, I understand what you are saying.
However, most good scientists never claim to have all the answers. Because there is too much specific information that scientific observation has observed for any one human being to process.

I don't attack religious or cultural beliefs without good reason. However, I have found sufficient reason to dislike the Abrahamic faiths. I like aspects of the culture, and I understand the logic behind it... but I don't have to like it, and that doesn't make it as useful as scientific observation.

Scientific observation is only as useful as it's model extrapolation, or predictive properties. A good expieriment is any expieriment that can be repeated or further observed. Cultural hypothesis and religion have the excuse of saying, "Well, this was an exception, the gods were angry." or some thing else. A scienctist would go and try to find why it was an exception. It doesn't invalidate the method, such as, say, spirit healing, but here's the thing. If after many expieriments in faith healing show that it is no more effective than a placebo or community support... saying that faith healing isn't anymore effective than a placebo or community support is a reasonable statment.

It's not offensive... it's just true.

[Mavorpen]

Um. You seem to think that science must be 100% true and certain because you have the internet.
That's NOT what Popper says -- and NO professional scientists would say so.

Wrong. It was one example. The point is that if science isn't a valid method of obtaining and organizing information (which is it's job), then it wouldn't produce such tangible results such as technological advancements. And actually, professional scientists say this all the time.

[CVT Temp]

Also, would you agree that science will always rely on falsifiability? No matter how long science lasts?

Only modulo the fact that what is and isn't "falsifiable" is not a fixed thing. You can never decide at time t = 0 that X is forever unfalsifiable, since you cannot predict future changes in scientific processes. Many people declare something to be unfalsifiable simply because they're not personally clever enough to imagine how to test something.

[Socialist Monarchies]

Agree to disagree and respect and accept people for believing in what ever the fuck they want to.

*end of thread*

yeah good luck with that NS has always done this and will continue to function in this manner. Check past threads, there are many of them like this one, new ones appear every couple of days.

By completely denying everyones' opinion, except yours? Got it.

btw, Albert Einstein once said "Religion without science is boring, science without religion is lame." They are two sides of the same coin-6 of 1, as we say around here-so quit acting like they're not. And, Einstein-and many other ingenious scientists throughout history- believed in God and I refuse to think that any of you (theist or atheist) are smarter than them.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Could you put some effort into making your posts sensible? Seriously, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Your analogy is shit because it has nothing to do with my point. You're using a computer, something that would ONLY work if we could "prove science."

And?

Um. You seem to think that science must be 100% true and certain because you have the internet.
That's NOT what Popper says -- and NO professional scientists would say so.

Please explain what it means to prove science true. I can't speak for everyone, but given the quotation marks, it seems as though Mavorpen, as well as myself, understand what you mean by proving science as much as if you were talking about proving philosophy. That is to say, it makes no sense.

[New Rogernomics]

Um. You seem to think that science must be 100% true and certain because you have the internet.
That's NOT what Popper says -- and NO professional scientists would say so.

Wrong. It was one example. The point is that if science isn't a valid method of obtaining and organizing information (which is it's job), then it wouldn't produce such tangible results such as technological advancements. And actually, professional scientists say this all the time.

Stupid posts don't count as trolling do they. Bugger, still not actionable.

[CVT Temp]

I would also point out that "falsifiability" is less a principle of science and more a fundamental principle of basic reasoning.

My views on philosophy and philosophy of science are not orthodox, so you're not going to get the typical lazy answers from me.

[Grimlundt]

My point is that science cannot be proven except by science. in short, it's a holistic, self-reinforcing system of knowledge (the technical tyerm is "episteme")

Now I have NO PROBLEM with science
Just the arrogance of some atheists who see themselves as "scientists"

I myself do not believe in the gods
But I do not attack religious/cultural beliefs for no reason
and then strut about and say I have all the answers

I am an anthropology major, I understand what you are saying.
However, most good scientists never claim to have all the answers. Because there is too much specific information that scientific observation has observed for any one human being to process.

I don't attack religious or cultural beliefs without good reason. However, I have found sufficient reason to dislike the Abrahamic faiths. I like aspects of the culture, and I understand the logic behind it... but I don't have to like it, and that doesn't make it as useful as scientific observation.

Scientific observation is only as useful as it's model extrapolation, or predictive properties. A good expieriment is any expieriment that can be repeated or further observed. Cultural hypothesis and religion have the excuse of saying, "Well, this was an exception, the gods were angry." or some thing else. A scienctist would go and try to find why it was an exception. It doesn't invalidate the method, such as, say, spirit healing, but here's the thing. If after many expieriments in faith healing show that it is no more effective than a placebo or community support... saying that faith healing isn't anymore effective than a placebo or community support is a reasonable statment.

It's not offensive... it's just true.

I don't think we disagree?
Are you being too harsh on Abrahamic faiths?

[Seperates]

That's the thing.
Shamanism does work.
It is observably powerful.
My opinion ... it's the placebo effect.
But magic IS(to some extent) based on observations.

Surrounding Highspeed camera for magic and MRI for Shamanism. Basically Further observation. Shamanism does work. But so does placebos and meditation. So there must be something else at work.

[Kholdlands]

yeah good luck with that NS has always done this and will continue to function in this manner. Check past threads, there are many of them like this one, new ones appear every couple of days.

By completely denying everyones' opinion, except yours? Got it.

btw, Albert Einstein once said "Religion without science is boring, science without religion is lame." They are two sides of the same coin-6 of 1, as we say around here-so quit acting like they're not. And, Einstein-and many other ingenious scientists throughout history- believed in God and I refuse to think that any of you (theist or atheist) are smarter than them.

My opinion, I don't remember taking a stance on this thread's topic, (I may have but I cant remember, too many posts) only stating that people will continue to argue and saying "just respect each other's opinions" won't be enough to stop it. People have freedom of speech and will use it. I am not denying anything as far as I can tell, only stating an obvious fact because I am bored.

[Grimlundt]

Um. You seem to think that science must be 100% true and certain because you have the internet.
That's NOT what Popper says -- and NO professional scientists would say so.

Wrong. It was one example. The point is that if science isn't a valid method of obtaining and organizing information (which is it's job), then it wouldn't produce such tangible results such as technological advancements. And actually, professional scientists say this all the time.

yeah. We call that "performativity"
You are sort of missing the whole point
I have no problems with science, okay?
I LIKE science
But i do NOT think science has all the answers
Poetry is unscientific
Morality is unscientific
Those are just for starers

But what this discussion is really about now is:
Is it fair to characterize our present culture as functioning vis a 'sceintific" world view or "episteme"
OR
Is science really the lack of any system at all?
OR
somewhere in between

We are not really fighting about this anymore. We are working the problem?

[CVT Temp]

yeah. We call that "performativity"
You are sort of missing the whole point
I have no problems with science, okay?
I LIKE science
But i do NOT think science has all the answers
Poetry is unscientific
Morality is unscientific
Those are just for starers

But what this discussion is really about now is:
Is it fair to characterize our present culture as functioning vis a 'sceintific" world view or "episteme"
OR
Is science really the lack of any system at all?
OR
somewhere in between

We are not really fighting about this anymore. We are working the problem?

Sam Harris actually thinks that morality is a science, and that science can answer moral questions.

[Grimlundt]

Wrong. It was one example. The point is that if science isn't a valid method of obtaining and organizing information (which is it's job), then it wouldn't produce such tangible results such as technological advancements. And actually, professional scientists say this all the time.

Stupid posts don't count as trolling do they. Bugger, still not actionable.

do you think calling people trolls when they obviously DO care about knowledge and society is unfair abuse?
You troll

[Grimlundt]

I would also point out that "falsifiability" is less a principle of science and more a fundamental principle of basic reasoning.

My views on philosophy and philosophy of science are not orthodox, so you're not going to get the typical lazy answers from me.

I would say that falsifiability is essential to science but also applies more broadly?
I cannot conceive of a future science where falsifiability is not imperative.

oops sorry. I types above
Old habits

[Mavorpen]

yeah. We call that "performativity"
You are sort of missing the whole point
I have no problems with science, okay?
I LIKE science
But i do NOT think science has all the answers
Poetry is unscientific
Morality is unscientific
Those are just for starers

Morality isn't unscientific.

But what this discussion is really about now is:
Is it fair to characterize our present culture as functioning vis a 'sceintific" world view or "episteme"
OR
Is science really the lack of any system at all?
OR
somewhere in between

What the fuck are you talking about?