Atheism and religious hate

[Grimlundt]

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.

So did Hitler.
Do you just want to cite an authority like a medieval schoolman or would you like to precis his ideas?

[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

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.

He's the more popular figure of scientific morality.

[Apoctis]

Now this is something, not only does it once again imply that it is the Christian majority within the US that is at risk of some fantasy jack boot wearing state, but it also seems to somehow lump Islam in there as well as one of the reasons Christians will be once again thrown to the lions. Atheists are a minority and will remain so for quite a while until more people start having rational discussions about their beliefs, why they have these beliefs without evidence, and why its so important to acknowledge that these beliefs may be false,especially when faced with evidence. If there is a coming storm, its Hurricane Sandy and its already passed.

[Seperates]

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?

Based on the amount of people that do not hold an honored position within the society (i.e. anybody who has arbitrarily 'sinned', which is an absolutly individual assesment than can then transfer to a society assessment) and the lack of substantial understanding for WHY they believe what they believe other than metaphysical extrapolations of concepts that they have been told about but never observed, I'd say that perhaps I am at times too understanding.

I as I said... I have sufficient reasons to dislike the Abrahamic faith... but I am neutral.

[Mavorpen]

So did Hitler.
Do you just want to cite an authority like a medieval schoolman or would you like to precis his ideas?

No, he didn't. Hitler said nothing close to that.

[New Rogernomics]

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?

Still replying to Grimlock?

[Seperates]

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.

Which is where him and applied anthropologists have significant disagreement.

[CVT Temp]

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

I think that all meaningful claims about the structure of the universe are either falsifiable, verifiable, or both. To go into why I think this would be rather involved and, quite honestly, it would be a total threadjack.

[Grimlundt]

So did Hitler.
Do you just want to cite an authority like a medieval schoolman or would you like to precis his ideas?

Science only EVER produces indicatives.
Morality is largely composed of imperatives.
There is a logical gap that forbids morality really being scientific.
You might be able to explain morality in terms of social science, but such an act would be amoral.
Do you understand?

[Mavorpen]

Morality isn't unscientific.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Still replying to Grimlock?

I ignore him on everything else, but science is sort of my weakness.

[Grimlundt]

Thanks for your time
You have taught me many things

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

I think that all meaningful claims about the structure of the universe are either falsifiable, verifiable, or both. To go into why I think this would be rather involved and, quite honestly, it would be a total threadjack.

[CVT Temp]

So did Hitler.
Do you just want to cite an authority like a medieval schoolman or would you like to precis his ideas?

No, I was simply pointing out that the declaration that morality is unscientific is not a universally held claim by all non-crackpots, and therefore it might warrant more justification than just a simple assertion.

[Mavorpen]

Science only EVER produces indicatives.
Morality is largely composed of imperatives.
There is a logical gap that forbids morality really being scientific.
You might be able to explain morality in terms of social science, but such an act would be amoral.
Do you understand?

...neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris' science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality.

Well look at that. Looks like morality can be scientific.

[Grimlundt]

Still replying to Grimlock?

I ignore him on everything else, but science is sort of my weakness.

OMG.
What's the problem, baby.
Somebody give you some of your own medicine for a change?

You do know that it is hypocritical to abuse people and call names and then turn and justify it by saying "he is not nice"

[Seperates]

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.

Einstien was wrong about some of his observations on the nature of reality. He was a brilliant man... but he was still a man.

[Grimlundt]

So did Hitler.
Do you just want to cite an authority like a medieval schoolman or would you like to precis his ideas?

No, I was simply pointing out that the declaration that morality is unscientific is not a universally held claim by all non-crackpots, and therefore it might warrant more justification than just a simple assertion.

Hume was not a crackpot!

Well ... please consider my argument vis science describing facts as opposed to morality as a system of commands?

[New Rogernomics]

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.

Einstien Einstein was wrong about some of his observations on the nature of reality. He was a brilliant man... but he was still a man.

I am a grammar Nazi today.

[Tlaceceyaya]

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?

Please tell us what you mean when you say science. You seem to be talking about it like an idea, but then you suddenly talk about it like a methodism.

And poetry is certainly scientifically explainable. Upon hearing or reading it, our brains may release chemicals which cause us to feel emotions.
And morality is very scientific.

[Mavorpen]

I ignore him on everything else, but science is sort of my weakness.

OMG.
What's the problem, baby.
Somebody give you some of your own medicine for a change?

You do know that it is hypocritical to abuse people and call names and then turn and justify it by saying "he is not nice"

Flamebait is against the rules.

[Grimlundt]

Science only EVER produces indicatives.
Morality is largely composed of imperatives.
There is a logical gap that forbids morality really being scientific.
You might be able to explain morality in terms of social science, but such an act would be amoral.
Do you understand?

...neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris' science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality.

You MORON
So you can see the brain firing?
Does this make killing wrong?
Say you can show that pirahna do not eat other pirahna?
Does that make pirahna righteous?
You are confusing descriptions of facts with moral principles
You imbecile
I try to explain and correct you but you can't see simple distinctions

Well look at that. Looks like morality can be scientific.

[Seperates]

Einstien Einstein was wrong about some of his observations on the nature of reality. He was a brilliant man... but he was still a man.

I am a grammar Nazi today.

Thanks.

[Socialist Monarchies]

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.

Einstien was wrong about some of his observations on the nature of reality. He was a brilliant man... but he was still a man.

A man more brilliant than you or I and, if you could be so kind, what are you referencing specifically?

[Grimlundt]

have you ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?
Because YOU are deep in the grips of it -- and do not even know it.

That's right. My neurons fire and that explains Hamlet.
IMBECILE!

[CVT Temp]

Hume was not a crackpot!

Well ... please consider my argument vis science describing facts as opposed to morality as a system of commands?

The argument would be that science actually can tell us what it is that makes humans happy, healthy, etc. so that science can tell us, at least in principle, what kind of society(ies) would lead to peak human flourishing.

The only non-scientific part of this required is to assume that human suffering is bad and human well-being is good. Otherwise, science is doing all the heavy lifting w.r.t. figuring out what's right and wrong.

[New Rogernomics]

I am a grammar Nazi today.

Thanks.

I use this ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3497 ) unless I am using my mobile.