Isaac Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Naturalism, materialism and atheism are all examples of belief bias. No they're not, retard. I know you think atheism is a belief, TJ, but it's not. It's the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. Yes, they are. Atheism IS a belief - it's the belief that there is no god. If you want to talk about absence of belief, that would be called NON-theism, not A-theism. Naturalism or materialism is a dogmatic belief that nothing exists beyond what we with our limited senses perceive to be the entirety of reality. I'm sorry but my mind is open to more possibilities. Yours apparently is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I very strongly disagree with you here TJ and it is very typical of you that you insist that you have a monopoly on the definition of very complex words and issues. Science is about what works. If there was a supernatural God who say cured people via prayer, science could verify that this was so, the same if there was a God who produced accurate prophecies. Science could also verify if psychics could predict what people are thinking. There is nothing in science which precludes supernatural explanations or unknown causes - it is simply that science hasn't found these phenomena. Science involves principles - but they are self-referentially consistent - if a principle works use it, but if it doesn't examine if there are better principles to use. This isn't faith. It pre-supposes if a belief is found to be untenable it should be abandoned. Religious faith operates on the opposite assumption - that faith should be maintained even in the face of confounding evidence. Science is all about not fooling yourself - faith encourages you to hold onto failed beliefs, and hence has no mechanism to reject failed dogmas - other than societal change. If there is evidence for the supernatural - science will have to deal with that and add it to its corpus of knowledge. It is not dogmatic and does not automatically reject the idea of the supernatural - it just asks for evidence and asks how is this belief useful. There is very little evidence for the form of say an event horizon, but doing the maths, seeing how evidence from else where can be brought to this issue and hence produce ways to look for evidence which can distinguish different theories is a useful way to advance knowledge. Science is all about trying to find clear ways to distinguish different theories via evidence. Religion is the opposite and often become less and less meaningful and more and more esoteric and unworldly as it become "sophisticated". It is in fact saying nothing: horoscopes have the same tendency, astrology is not a science and is basically useless, astronomy has opened our eyes to the true wonder of the universe. I know which side of this argument I am on. Theology is empty and adds nothing that is attempted in philosophy and ethics. Science on the other hand has enabled us to understand our world to an unimaginable extent compared to 300 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I very strongly disagree with you here TJ and it is very typical of you that you insist that you have a monopoly on the definition of very complex words and issues. I am not TJ so stop calling me that and I haven't insisted on having a monopoly on anything. I didn't even use any complex words. Science is about what works. If there was a supernatural God who say cured people via prayer, science could verify that this was so, the same if there was a God who produced accurate prophecies. Science could also verify if psychics could predict what people are thinking. There is nothing in science which precludes supernatural explanations or unknown causes - it is simply that science hasn't found these phenomena. Science involves principles - but they are self-referentially consistent - if a principle works use it, but if it doesn't examine if there are better principles to use. This isn't faith. It pre-supposes if a belief is found to be untenable it should be abandoned. Religious faith operates on the opposite assumption - that faith should be maintained even in the face of confounding evidence. Science is all about not fooling yourself - faith encourages you to hold onto failed beliefs, and hence has no mechanism to reject failed dogmas - other than societal change. Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. Science as a philosophy and a practical way of figuring out reality is the way forward. Religion is to limit ourselves and resort to "God did it" instead of investigating and discovering real answers. I just like to keep an open mind that what we know now is not all there is to know and perhaps there are things which point to a higher intelligence. I really don't believe in the standard "God" as espoused by the religions - nor even a mechanical God of Deism who sets it all in motion. I just have a sense that there is more and there is some purpose and meaning to the universe and that it is personal and not just material. If there is evidence for the supernatural - science will have to deal with that and add it to its corpus of knowledge. It is not dogmatic and does not automatically reject the idea of the supernatural - it just asks for evidence and asks how is this belief useful. But will it really? Not when science has a naturalistic bias. I'm sorry but materialism is dogmatic. You're saying nothing exists but the physical and therefore any evidence or theory which might go beyond that will be marginalised and ridiculed. Science is all about trying to find clear ways to distinguish different theories via evidence. Religion is the opposite and often become less and less meaningful and more and more esoteric and unworldly as it become "sophisticated". It is in fact saying nothing: horoscopes have the same tendency, astrology is not a science and is basically useless, astronomy has opened our eyes to the true wonder of the universe. I know which side of this argument I am on. Theology is empty and adds nothing that is attempted in philosophy and ethics. Science on the other hand has enabled us to understand our world to an unimaginable extent compared to 300 years ago. Yes, in principle, that is what science is all about, but I'm sure you've read Karl Popper and know science can't be divorced from social and ideological context. To claim intellectual purity is bordering on claims of holiness. Scientists are almost being held on a pedestal as not mere mortals like the rest of us and have become like a priestly caste. Sorry but wherever human beings are involved, there is going to be bias. That is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Some atheists are as extreme in their belief as religious zealots. In the same way that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, equally there is no evidence for the absence of a creator, so atheism is indeed a belief rather than a lack of belief. Given that we perceive plenty of stuff has been created, this at least leaves room for the possibility of a creator to be a viable argument even without evidence. If there is no creator, how did everything suddenly exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Some atheists are as extreme in their belief as religious zealots. In the same way that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, equally there is no evidence for the absence of a creator, so atheism is indeed a belief rather than a lack of belief. Given that we perceive plenty of stuff has been created, this at least leaves room for the possibility of a creator to be a viable argument even without evidence. If there is no creator, how did everything suddenly exist? Maybe there wasn't a creator. I certainly believe there is a guiding force, or a higher intelligence. I don't think belief in God requires belief in a creator or creation. It definitely doesn't require religion. It depends on your definition of God and what you mean by creation. I believe more in emanation than creation, seeing the universe more as an outflow or extension of a supreme being, meaning there isn't this black and white distinction between creator and creation. It's all wrapped up together. There need not be any purpose or conscious guidance - any meaning and guiding force could be unconscious and a natural extension of a supreme being, as our dreams or imagination are an extension of us. I don't think the truth can be boiled down to a question of Atheism versus Theism. I think both belief systems have limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 can science (seance) reveal the subconscious secrets of the living condition though china? can it measure prove and demonstrate a mother's love? can it get results without subject matter or people to carry it out? it's a fragile balance to be a spiritual scientist but so is walking a tightrope. it's all to easy too disregard the spark of life in search for the mechanisms. it's like reading the dictionary instead of a novel. it's a no brainer what makes us tick and what drives us. and that's the crux of it. but hey, where would we be without the seance that gave us the war machine, microwave dinners and coronation street on record? premier league football on tap, unibond premier league morals and ethics? thank god seance saved us from the horrors of being in tune with our natural surroundings, through our faculties. and by the way, to cure means to preserve a product x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 Some atheists are as extreme in their belief as religious zealots. In the same way that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, equally there is no evidence for the absence of a creator, so atheism is indeed a belief rather than a lack of belief. Given that we perceive plenty of stuff has been created, this at least leaves room for the possibility of a creator to be a viable argument even without evidence. If there is no creator, how did everything suddenly exist? Apparently it all just exploded into existence by random chance, from nothing according to the greatest minds science has to offer, this explanation seems to sit well with followers of group think science, there is no creator in the heliocentric universe, that's the point, however a geocentric universe tends to support intelligent design and has no need of such imaginative origins to our existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Naturalism, materialism and atheism are all examples of belief bias. No they're not, retard. I know you think atheism is a belief, TJ, but it's not. It's the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. Yes, they are. Atheism IS a belief - it's the belief that there is no god(s) Corrected you. I don't believe in unicorms or He-Man, doesn't mean my understanding of electricity will be biased by that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 can science (seance) reveal the subconscious secrets of the living condition though china? The one thing you constantly seem to be missing...."not yet, but possibly in the future". Because we didn't have powered flight 100 years ago didn't stop us learning how to "in the future". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Some atheists are as extreme in their belief as religious zealots. In the same way that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, equally there is no evidence for the absence of a creator, so atheism is indeed a belief rather than a lack of belief. Given that we perceive plenty of stuff has been created, this at least leaves room for the possibility of a creator to be a viable argument even without evidence. If there is no creator, how did everything suddenly exist? Apparently it all just exploded into existence by random chance, from nothing according to the greatest minds science has to offer, this explanation seems to sit well with followers of group think science, there is no creator in the heliocentric universe, that's the point, however a geocentric universe tends to support intelligent design and has no need of such imaginative origins to our existence. I think it was just their way of saying they hadn't a clue without sounding stupid and without giving up the privileges attached to being the greatest minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Some atheists are as extreme in their belief as religious zealots. In the same way that there is no evidence for the existence of a creator, equally there is no evidence for the absence of a creator, so atheism is indeed a belief rather than a lack of belief. Given that we perceive plenty of stuff has been created, this at least leaves room for the possibility of a creator to be a viable argument even without evidence. If there is no creator, how did everything suddenly exist? Apparently it all just exploded into existence by random chance, from nothing according to the greatest minds science has to offer, this explanation seems to sit well with followers of group think science, there is no creator in the heliocentric universe, that's the point, however a geocentric universe tends to support intelligent design and has no need of such imaginative origins to our existence. I think it was just their way of saying they hadn't a clue without sounding stupid and without giving up the privileges attached to being the greatest minds. Who to listen to...published and widely regarded scientific minds...or Woolley on ManxForums? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 OK, take that on the chin. I don't even have a theory, but at least I admit it. What are they really saying? Other than it just happened? Bit convenient isn't it? Ever heard of the king's new clothes? ETA: And of course "widely regarded" by their peers - meaning other scientists. For me, Einstein and Einstein alone was the man. To read his work is a privilege. Difficult enough to get your mind around his theories placed before you, let alone to come up with them in the first place. A genius above all others and there has been nobody since to hold a candle despite there being pretenders claiming to carry on the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Naturalism, materialism and atheism are all examples of belief bias. No they're not, retard. I know you think atheism is a belief, TJ, but it's not. It's the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. Yes, they are. Atheism IS a belief - it's the belief that there is no god(s) Corrected you. I don't believe in unicorms or He-Man, doesn't mean my understanding of electricity will be biased by that fact. these still believe in unicorns though! x http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I very strongly disagree with you here TJ and it is very typical of you that you insist that you have a monopoly on the definition of very complex words and issues. I am not TJ so stop calling me that and I haven't insisted on having a monopoly on anything. I didn't even use any complex words. Science is about what works. If there was a supernatural God who say cured people via prayer, science could verify that this was so, the same if there was a God who produced accurate prophecies. Science could also verify if psychics could predict what people are thinking. There is nothing in science which precludes supernatural explanations or unknown causes - it is simply that science hasn't found these phenomena. Science involves principles - but they are self-referentially consistent - if a principle works use it, but if it doesn't examine if there are better principles to use. This isn't faith. It pre-supposes if a belief is found to be untenable it should be abandoned. Religious faith operates on the opposite assumption - that faith should be maintained even in the face of confounding evidence. Science is all about not fooling yourself - faith encourages you to hold onto failed beliefs, and hence has no mechanism to reject failed dogmas - other than societal change. Well said. I couldn't agree with you more. Science as a philosophy and a practical way of figuring out reality is the way forward. Religion is to limit ourselves and resort to "God did it" instead of investigating and discovering real answers. I just like to keep an open mind that what we know now is not all there is to know and perhaps there are things which point to a higher intelligence. I really don't believe in the standard "God" as espoused by the religions - nor even a mechanical God of Deism who sets it all in motion. I just have a sense that there is more and there is some purpose and meaning to the universe and that it is personal and not just material. If there is evidence for the supernatural - science will have to deal with that and add it to its corpus of knowledge. It is not dogmatic and does not automatically reject the idea of the supernatural - it just asks for evidence and asks how is this belief useful. But will it really? Not when science has a naturalistic bias. I'm sorry but materialism is dogmatic. You're saying nothing exists but the physical and therefore any evidence or theory which might go beyond that will be marginalised and ridiculed. Science is all about trying to find clear ways to distinguish different theories via evidence. Religion is the opposite and often become less and less meaningful and more and more esoteric and unworldly as it become "sophisticated". It is in fact saying nothing: horoscopes have the same tendency, astrology is not a science and is basically useless, astronomy has opened our eyes to the true wonder of the universe. I know which side of this argument I am on. Theology is empty and adds nothing that is attempted in philosophy and ethics. Science on the other hand has enabled us to understand our world to an unimaginable extent compared to 300 years ago. Yes, in principle, that is what science is all about, but I'm sure you've read Karl Popper and know science can't be divorced from social and ideological context. To claim intellectual purity is bordering on claims of holiness. Scientists are almost being held on a pedestal as not mere mortals like the rest of us and have become like a priestly caste. Sorry but wherever human beings are involved, there is going to be bias. That is a fact. Bump for Chinahand. Why does he always disappear when I debunk him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Too busy. Later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.