QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 04:19 AM)
I would say that we are definitely close (given that my current mental picture of you is accurate).
I must say, given our recent discussion, this makes no sense: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=430249.
Care to explain what was going on there?
too quickly jumped on a forum after doing a google search on Davies' book, "the mind of god". i "assumed" I was on a forum discussing the book. and my original beef was with "assumptions'....
my criticism was directed at his theory including ID, but casually, with no explanation, disregarding the possibility of the god of scripture. I still hold to that one. how can you write an entire book, based on 'science', claim an ID, but exclude the one with more historical validity than even.... can't say that without citation..
I must say, given our recent discussion, this makes no sense: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=430249.
Care to explain what was going on there?
too quickly jumped on a forum after doing a google search on Davies' book, "the mind of god". i "assumed" I was on a forum discussing the book. and my original beef was with "assumptions'....
my criticism was directed at his theory including ID, but casually, with no explanation, disregarding the possibility of the god of scripture. I still hold to that one. how can you write an entire book, based on 'science', claim an ID, but exclude the one with more historical validity than even.... can't say that without citation..
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 12:32 AM)
materialism.... i believe you introduced that early on in the conversation.
Maybe I was wrong to use "materialism" to describe science. While empiricism and materialism share similar traits, they are not the same thing. For my own personal philosophy, materialism works better than idealism or spiritualism.
Maybe I was wrong to use "materialism" to describe science. While empiricism and materialism share similar traits, they are not the same thing. For my own personal philosophy, materialism works better than idealism or spiritualism.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 01:46 AM)
Basically I hold hard to the belief that we, our minds, our ability to comprehend, etc.. are most likely so incredibly limited in comparison to the 'whole of existence', particularly its beginning, that i believe it will likely remain beyond our comprehension regardless of the time allotted.
Conversely, it's equally possible that our our minds, our ability to comprehend etc ... are likely to achieve the highest possible comprehension that the constraints of our universe can allow. We could be the very first expression of such a thing in the universe ... or we could be the last.
There is quite a bit of sophistry in this thread. In the end (speaking in the vernacular), what truly matters is that we give it our "best shot". As (I think) you agree that "best" is advanced via science.
Part of the process in a world of varying comprehensions means that hokum must be decried. We cannot leave every possibility open. When understanding reaches high levels (as in evolution) then science must do what it does today ... equivocation does not serve advancement. When (and if) some major change in any particular theory becomes clear then the new paradigm is adopted. But until that happens, running around saying, "Er .. uh ... we don't really know that 100% because the dataset is only nn% complete" ... is antithetical to the effort.
Equivocating leads to the cranks that FBM mentions. It leads to truthers, birthers, UFOlogists, IDers and worst of all Glenn Beck (it's said that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990).
I think that high-minded thinking such as yours could be an enabling factor for such things. I'm not saying here that there is anything wrong with demanding rigor and clear conclusions from science. That absolutely must happen. However, the level of certitude you seem to desire means that science could ultimately be stuck in a quagmire.
Conversely, it's equally possible that our our minds, our ability to comprehend etc ... are likely to achieve the highest possible comprehension that the constraints of our universe can allow. We could be the very first expression of such a thing in the universe ... or we could be the last.
There is quite a bit of sophistry in this thread. In the end (speaking in the vernacular), what truly matters is that we give it our "best shot". As (I think) you agree that "best" is advanced via science.
Part of the process in a world of varying comprehensions means that hokum must be decried. We cannot leave every possibility open. When understanding reaches high levels (as in evolution) then science must do what it does today ... equivocation does not serve advancement. When (and if) some major change in any particular theory becomes clear then the new paradigm is adopted. But until that happens, running around saying, "Er .. uh ... we don't really know that 100% because the dataset is only nn% complete" ... is antithetical to the effort.
Equivocating leads to the cranks that FBM mentions. It leads to truthers, birthers, UFOlogists, IDers and worst of all Glenn Beck (it's said that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990).
I think that high-minded thinking such as yours could be an enabling factor for such things. I'm not saying here that there is anything wrong with demanding rigor and clear conclusions from science. That absolutely must happen. However, the level of certitude you seem to desire means that science could ultimately be stuck in a quagmire.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 03:49 AM)
For that, I salute you!
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
This is probably true, but science is obviously the best solution, especially when given the alternatives.
I will recommend a book that I read somewhat recently:
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
i'll have to agree with flyingbuttressman here,
there's is still plenty of room in science for God, just a 'different' idea of God, definetly not the God as how Biblical passages describe it. But theres sill room for God.
ps. im an atheist.
I might agree with you there, but I can't without specific examples.
This is probably true, but science is obviously the best solution, especially when given the alternatives.
I will recommend a book that I read somewhat recently:
Finding Darwin's God
by Kenneth R. Miller
The main point of the book is basically that god and science are not in conflict. The problem is when religious people put themselves in a corner when they try to "stuff the gaps" with god. When that gap is finally explained through science, they have damaged the case that they were trying to present. Miller paints god as a much more fundamental force that acts with nature to achieve his goals. Miller believes that god did not create Homo Sapiens specifically, but instead chose them as a product of evolution. The book makes an excellent case for evolution, complete with evidence.
I myself am looking forward to reading Dawkins' new book: "The Greatest Show on Earth"
i'll have to agree with flyingbuttressman here,
there's is still plenty of room in science for God, just a 'different' idea of God, definetly not the God as how Biblical passages describe it. But theres sill room for God.
ps. im an atheist.
QUOTE (Matador+Sep 29 2009, 08:24 AM)
ps. im an atheist.
NO. You are not. You are agnostic.
Gods by definition are supernatural. Science is the realm of natural therefore there IS no room for gods of ANY description via science.
NO. You are not. You are agnostic.
Gods by definition are supernatural. Science is the realm of natural therefore there IS no room for gods of ANY description via science.
QUOTE
NO. You are not. You are agnostic.
Gods by definition are supernatural. Science is the realm of natural therefore there IS no room for gods of ANY description via science.
Gods by definition are supernatural. Science is the realm of natural therefore there IS no room for gods of ANY description via science.
No, im an Atheist.
My statement was more toward the resentment of 'bible' bashers and their 'one eyed' views towards science and the scientific method. Physical reality can be studied scientifically without bringing in any 'outside' explanations.
I am sorry that you missunderstood my post.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 06:24 AM)
the level of certitude you seem to desire means that science could ultimately be stuck in a quagmire.
Not that I expect or desire a particular level of certitude, just call it what it is. The "Laws" of thermodynamics, motion, etc are called "laws" because of the level of certitude.
The hypotheses of evolution are what they are because of the level of certitude (lack thereof)
and there are way too many physicists and mathematicians who do not 'believe' this explanation to be near adequate, even stating that it contradicts the LAWS of physics and is statistically impossible. (that is why I asked for the names of scientists who have contributed substantially.... who also agree with evolution)
we certainly didn't teach unified field theory nor other brilliantly conceived theories as "facts" the way we do evolution. I believe that is, in part, because there is so much emotion invested in evolution. I just wish we would acknowledge when philosophy and emotion have played a role in our theories. Better yet, if we were teaching these kids to reason, there would be little need for the acknowledgment beyond honesty for the sake of honesty.
lets continue to advance evolution, but keep it separate from the science we can back with experimentation, mathematics, proofs, etc. and lets stop calling it something it is not.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 07:42 AM)
lets continue to advance evolution, but keep it separate from the science we can back with experimentation, mathematics, proofs, etc. and lets stop calling it something it is not.
Technically, you could prove evolution in a lab.
Forcing bacteria to resist antibiotics has long been an unfortunate implication of evolution.
Now, if you are referring to abiogenesis and cosmology, then you shouldn't use the word 'evolution' to refer to them. Evolution has been proven to occur, and all we have to do is extrapolate our short-term results to see that all large amounts of change require is large amounts of time.
Technically, you could prove evolution in a lab.
Forcing bacteria to resist antibiotics has long been an unfortunate implication of evolution.
Now, if you are referring to abiogenesis and cosmology, then you shouldn't use the word 'evolution' to refer to them. Evolution has been proven to occur, and all we have to do is extrapolate our short-term results to see that all large amounts of change require is large amounts of time.
QUOTE (Matador+Sep 29 2009, 10:29 AM)
No, im an Atheist.
My statement was more toward the resentment of 'bible' bashers and their 'one eyed' views towards science and the scientific method. Physical reality can be studied scientifically without bringing in any 'outside' explanations.
I am sorry that you missunderstood my post.
No.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
My statement was more toward the resentment of 'bible' bashers and their 'one eyed' views towards science and the scientific method. Physical reality can be studied scientifically without bringing in any 'outside' explanations.
I am sorry that you missunderstood my post.
No.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 10:19 AM)
No.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
Actually, I would say that I think his purpose was to say that religious people don't need to see god and science as mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean that he believes in god, it just means that he thinks that religious people don't have to lose their faith to believe in science.
I agree with him on that, even though I think that the concept of god is silly. Religious people are still people, and many of them are intelligent. God is simply a very popular misconception that people don't want to give up. I don't see a problem with the existence of religion as long as they don't do bad things with it.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
Actually, I would say that I think his purpose was to say that religious people don't need to see god and science as mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean that he believes in god, it just means that he thinks that religious people don't have to lose their faith to believe in science.
I agree with him on that, even though I think that the concept of god is silly. Religious people are still people, and many of them are intelligent. God is simply a very popular misconception that people don't want to give up. I don't see a problem with the existence of religion as long as they don't do bad things with it.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 02:24 PM)
God is simply a very popular misconception that people don't want to give up.
I take a definite hard line stance here. Science and belief in the supernatural ARE mutually incompatible. Secular scientists should do everything they can to drum the nutters out of their profession. Believing in the supernatural defies the practice of reason. It is an affront to rational thinking and a professional insult. Nutters thinking about being scientists should instead go into advertising or marketing and then do exactly what Bill Hicks says.
I take a definite hard line stance here. Science and belief in the supernatural ARE mutually incompatible. Secular scientists should do everything they can to drum the nutters out of their profession. Believing in the supernatural defies the practice of reason. It is an affront to rational thinking and a professional insult. Nutters thinking about being scientists should instead go into advertising or marketing and then do exactly what Bill Hicks says.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 10:36 AM)
I take a definite hard line stance here. Science and belief in the supernatural ARE mutually incompatible. Secular scientists should do everything they can to drum the nutters out of their profession. Believing in the supernatural defies the practice of reason. It is an affront to rational thinking and a professional insult. Nutters thinking about being scientists should instead go into advertising or marketing and then do exactly what Bill Hicks says.
Maybe religions will eventually die out, and maybe not. The worst thing that atheists can do is appear to be in the business of "stamping out religion." I think this is a situation for reverse psychology. Tell them that we don't mind religion, tell them that what they believe is a-ok. We'll think what we think, and they can believe what they want to believe. Driving them into complacency is the best thing we can do. We put the collar around religion's neck and we lead it around. It will die out of boredom. The first step is to alienate the religious extremists. If we can drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists, then we have won half the battle.
(note to religious people reading this post: The above is a work of fiction, and is not true at all. We don't really mind your beliefs, just keep them out of our science, thanks!)
Maybe religions will eventually die out, and maybe not. The worst thing that atheists can do is appear to be in the business of "stamping out religion." I think this is a situation for reverse psychology. Tell them that we don't mind religion, tell them that what they believe is a-ok. We'll think what we think, and they can believe what they want to believe. Driving them into complacency is the best thing we can do. We put the collar around religion's neck and we lead it around. It will die out of boredom. The first step is to alienate the religious extremists. If we can drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists, then we have won half the battle.
(note to religious people reading this post: The above is a work of fiction, and is not true at all. We don't really mind your beliefs, just keep them out of our science, thanks!)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 02:48 PM)
Maybe religions will eventually die out, and maybe not. The worst thing that atheists can do is appear to be in the business of "stamping out religion." I think this is a situation for reverse psychology. Tell them that we don't mind religion, tell them that what they believe is a-ok. We'll think what we think, and they can believe what they want to believe. Driving them into complacency is the best thing we can do. We put the collar around religion's neck and we lead it around. It will die out of boredom. The first step is to alienate the religious extremists. If we can drive a wedge between the moderates and the extremists, then we have won half the battle.
(note to religious people reading this post: The above is a work of fiction, and is not true at all. We don't really mind your beliefs, just keep them out of our science, thanks!)
I couldn't disagree more. I see the main problem is that good secular scientists are most likely so wrapped up in their vocation and/or not interested in confrontation that they enable religionists in their profession by default.
I'd advocate that someone with strong views (like me) start up some sort of Association of Secular Scientists - Bringing Everything Available To Eject Religionists (A.S.S. - B.E.A.T.E.Rs) fraternal organization and "evangelize" to other scientists at any and all conferences and gatherings to chase the nutters away.
The nutter religionists already believe there is such a conspiracy ... so let's give them a real one. Do it in the open. Shame them with reason. Convert them. Do it actively with passion. The reason that religion is more accepted in the U.S. than it is in any other developed nation is because there are so many namby-pamby wimps here that don't stand up to the BS.
(note to religious people reading this post: The above is a work of fiction, and is not true at all. We don't really mind your beliefs, just keep them out of our science, thanks!)
I couldn't disagree more. I see the main problem is that good secular scientists are most likely so wrapped up in their vocation and/or not interested in confrontation that they enable religionists in their profession by default.
I'd advocate that someone with strong views (like me) start up some sort of Association of Secular Scientists - Bringing Everything Available To Eject Religionists (A.S.S. - B.E.A.T.E.Rs) fraternal organization and "evangelize" to other scientists at any and all conferences and gatherings to chase the nutters away.
The nutter religionists already believe there is such a conspiracy ... so let's give them a real one. Do it in the open. Shame them with reason. Convert them. Do it actively with passion. The reason that religion is more accepted in the U.S. than it is in any other developed nation is because there are so many namby-pamby wimps here that don't stand up to the BS.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 12:07 PM)
I couldn't disagree more. I see the main problem is that good secular scientists are most likely so wrapped up in their vocation and/or not interested in confrontation that they enable religionists in their profession by default.
I'd advocate that someone with strong views (like me) start up some sort of Association of Secular Scientists - Bringing Everything Available To Eject Religionists (A.S.S. - B.E.A.T.E.Rs) fraternal organization and "evangelize" to other scientists at any and all conferences and gatherings to chase the nutters away.
The nutter religionists already believe there is such a conspiracy ... so let's give them a real one. Do it in the open. Shame them with reason. Convert them. Do it actively with passion. The reason that religion is more accepted in the U.S. than it is in any other developed nation is because there are so many namby-pamby wimps here that don't stand up to the BS.
Have you ever been a religious person? Direct confrontation is the best way to get them riled up. Given a choice between logic and god, they will choose god. People are never convinced by being shamed. They will merely retreat and keep their religious views a secret.
When, exactly, has your plan worked in the past?
I'd advocate that someone with strong views (like me) start up some sort of Association of Secular Scientists - Bringing Everything Available To Eject Religionists (A.S.S. - B.E.A.T.E.Rs) fraternal organization and "evangelize" to other scientists at any and all conferences and gatherings to chase the nutters away.
The nutter religionists already believe there is such a conspiracy ... so let's give them a real one. Do it in the open. Shame them with reason. Convert them. Do it actively with passion. The reason that religion is more accepted in the U.S. than it is in any other developed nation is because there are so many namby-pamby wimps here that don't stand up to the BS.
Have you ever been a religious person? Direct confrontation is the best way to get them riled up. Given a choice between logic and god, they will choose god. People are never convinced by being shamed. They will merely retreat and keep their religious views a secret.
When, exactly, has your plan worked in the past?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 04:13 PM)
Have you ever been a religious person? Direct confrontation is the best way to get them riled up. Given a choice between logic and god, they will choose god. People are never convinced by being shamed. They will merely retreat and keep their religious views a secret.
When, exactly, has your plan worked in the past?
I was raised Catholic. Retreating and keeping their religious views a secret would be fine with me. I assume that since above anything else that since science is a reason-based activity that it's really just a matter of convincing religionists in science to use their reasoning.
Conversation:
ASSBEATER: So you're a scientist right?
Nutter: Yes I am.
ASSBEATER: And would you agree that science is reason-based?
Nutter: Yes I suppose I have to.
ASSBEATER: And you'd agree that supernatural beleifs aren't a product of reason?
Nutter: Yes. Bu .. bu ... but ...
ASSBEATER: No buts about it my friend. Don't you think as a scientist you have a responsibility to uphold reason?
Nutter: Well .. Uh .. Um ...
ASSBEATER:Come now my friend ... this is 1+1=2 stuff here. Science = Reason ..... Religion = Faith ... they are incompatible.
Nutter: Yes ... science is reasoning and religion is faith ... but
ASSBEATER: You're faced with clear reasoning and yet you aren't sure? Are you really a scientist? Perhaps you should sell automobiles or refridgerators (said loudly enough to make bystanders titter about it).
Nutter: Well ... I guess
Viola ... you're on the road to ridding science of supernatural believing idiots.
And I'd like to think that I'm directly personally responsible for convincing at least a dozen people over the years that their religious beliefs were BS. I've failed with about as many. Luckily, I've never had to see those failed ones again. They were too scared I'd convince them to continue to associate with me.
When, exactly, has your plan worked in the past?
I was raised Catholic. Retreating and keeping their religious views a secret would be fine with me. I assume that since above anything else that since science is a reason-based activity that it's really just a matter of convincing religionists in science to use their reasoning.
Conversation:
ASSBEATER: So you're a scientist right?
Nutter: Yes I am.
ASSBEATER: And would you agree that science is reason-based?
Nutter: Yes I suppose I have to.
ASSBEATER: And you'd agree that supernatural beleifs aren't a product of reason?
Nutter: Yes. Bu .. bu ... but ...
ASSBEATER: No buts about it my friend. Don't you think as a scientist you have a responsibility to uphold reason?
Nutter: Well .. Uh .. Um ...
ASSBEATER:Come now my friend ... this is 1+1=2 stuff here. Science = Reason ..... Religion = Faith ... they are incompatible.
Nutter: Yes ... science is reasoning and religion is faith ... but
ASSBEATER: You're faced with clear reasoning and yet you aren't sure? Are you really a scientist? Perhaps you should sell automobiles or refridgerators (said loudly enough to make bystanders titter about it).
Nutter: Well ... I guess
Viola ... you're on the road to ridding science of supernatural believing idiots.
And I'd like to think that I'm directly personally responsible for convincing at least a dozen people over the years that their religious beliefs were BS. I've failed with about as many. Luckily, I've never had to see those failed ones again. They were too scared I'd convince them to continue to associate with me.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 12:42 PM)
Conversation:
ASSBEATER: So you're a scientist right?
Nutter: Yes I am.
ASSBEATER: And would you agree that science is reason-based?
Nutter: Yes I suppose I have to.
ASSBEATER: And you'd agree that supernatural beleifs aren't a product of reason?
Nutter: Yes. Bu .. bu ... but ...
ASSBEATER: No buts about it my friend. Don't you think as a scientist you have a responsibility to uphold reason?
Nutter: Well .. Uh .. Um ...
ASSBEATER:Come now my friend ... this is 1+1=2 stuff here. Science = Reason ..... Religion = Faith ... they are incompatible.
Nutter: Yes ... science is reasoning and religion is faith ... but
ASSBEATER: You're faced with clear reasoning and yet you aren't sure? Are you really a scientist? Perhaps you should sell automobiles or refridgerators (said loudly enough to make bystanders titter about it).
Nutter: Well ... I guess
Viola ... you're on the road to ridding science of supernatural believing idiots.
And I'd like to think that I'm directly personally responsible for convincing at least a dozen people over the years that their religious beliefs were BS. I've failed with about as many. Luckily, I've never had to see those failed ones again. They were too scared I'd convince them to continue to associate with me.
That might work with logical people, but true believers are not logical people. The illogical ones will proceed to spout false logical proofs of god's existence. They will talk about their personal experiences with god. They will talk about science's anti-religious bias invalidates the evidence for evolution.
If we try to convert them, we are as bad as they are. We are not a religion: we do not convert, we subvert.
If the mainstream religious communities get wind of any atheist plan to end religion, they will mobilize their people to protest and denounce atheism in public. You corrupt something by infiltrating it and making it feel comfortable before you start enforcing your will. By the end, religion will be a fairy tale, nothing more.
ASSBEATER: So you're a scientist right?
Nutter: Yes I am.
ASSBEATER: And would you agree that science is reason-based?
Nutter: Yes I suppose I have to.
ASSBEATER: And you'd agree that supernatural beleifs aren't a product of reason?
Nutter: Yes. Bu .. bu ... but ...
ASSBEATER: No buts about it my friend. Don't you think as a scientist you have a responsibility to uphold reason?
Nutter: Well .. Uh .. Um ...
ASSBEATER:Come now my friend ... this is 1+1=2 stuff here. Science = Reason ..... Religion = Faith ... they are incompatible.
Nutter: Yes ... science is reasoning and religion is faith ... but
ASSBEATER: You're faced with clear reasoning and yet you aren't sure? Are you really a scientist? Perhaps you should sell automobiles or refridgerators (said loudly enough to make bystanders titter about it).
Nutter: Well ... I guess
Viola ... you're on the road to ridding science of supernatural believing idiots.
And I'd like to think that I'm directly personally responsible for convincing at least a dozen people over the years that their religious beliefs were BS. I've failed with about as many. Luckily, I've never had to see those failed ones again. They were too scared I'd convince them to continue to associate with me.
That might work with logical people, but true believers are not logical people. The illogical ones will proceed to spout false logical proofs of god's existence. They will talk about their personal experiences with god. They will talk about science's anti-religious bias invalidates the evidence for evolution.
If we try to convert them, we are as bad as they are. We are not a religion: we do not convert, we subvert.
If the mainstream religious communities get wind of any atheist plan to end religion, they will mobilize their people to protest and denounce atheism in public. You corrupt something by infiltrating it and making it feel comfortable before you start enforcing your will. By the end, religion will be a fairy tale, nothing more.
QUOTE
That might work with logical people, but true believers are not logical people. The illogical ones will proceed to spout false logical proofs of god's existence.
And illogic has no place in science. Science is excellent at marginalizing what it considers nutters. More than excellent actually, they're the biggest experts EvAh in the art of marginalizing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That might work with logical people, but true believers are not logical people. The illogical ones will proceed to spout false logical proofs of god's existence. |
And illogic has no place in science. Science is excellent at marginalizing what it considers nutters. More than excellent actually, they're the biggest experts EvAh in the art of marginalizing.
They will talk about their personal experiences with god. They will talk about science's anti-religious bias invalidates the evidence for evolution.
And since they're marginalized they'll have no forum to spout that stupidity.
QUOTE
If we try to convert them, we are as bad as they are. We are not a religion: we do not convert, we subvert.
Subversion is dishonest and essentially cowardly. Their tactics are tried and true. They work. Science needs to recognize that fact and utilize those tools. Not doing so would be illogical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we try to convert them, we are as bad as they are. We are not a religion: we do not convert, we subvert. |
Subversion is dishonest and essentially cowardly. Their tactics are tried and true. They work. Science needs to recognize that fact and utilize those tools. Not doing so would be illogical.
If the mainstream religious communities get wind of any atheist plan to end religion, they will mobilize their people to protest and denounce atheism in public.
Good. No ... GREAT. Let them. A socio-cultural war is what is needed. Let's win the small battle amongst scientists first and go on from there to wipe these stupidities from human culture. They'll be bringing knives to a gun fight.
QUOTE
You corrupt something by infiltrating it and making it feel comfortable before you start enforcing your will. By the end, religion will be a fairy tale, nothing more.
Takes too long. Any such effort would be multi-generational and susceptible to corruption itself due to the length of time. I advocate a direct assault with all available weapons at the ready and used indiscriminately. Ultimately, such a thing might actually come down to actual real violence. If that is necessary then I'm on board with it. I guarantee that religionists would fight for their beliefs (cripes ... they're all fired up to fight within their own sects ... i.e.. Islam v Judeo-Xtianity). Secular people need to be prepared to do the same.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 11:55 AM)
Technically, you could prove evolution in a lab.
Forcing bacteria to resist antibiotics has long been an unfortunate implication of evolution.
silly me, your right. let's get right on that experiment.
antibiotic resistant bacteria certainly proves that particles, atoms, energy.... left to themselves will organize into the universe we are in today, complete with liquid goo in a sac that turns itself into a butterfly. oh, yea, and that 'non materialistic' thing we were referring to as 'intelligence' which doesn't actually exist.
gee, you really got me on that one.
I don't know where the physicists and mathematicians (MINUS philosophy and emotional investment in the non existence of a god) are today on this subject, but I know that several years ago I was hard pressed to find one physicists who would acknowledge that evolution is a good solid theory of how all this got here. from what i could see it was the biologists and cosmologists.... who held to the evolution theory. That is why i asked for the names of physicists (past or present) who have contributed major theories, proofs..., that have resulted in furthering our understanding of physics (not biology or philosophy or cosmology) Gee, it seems to me that, according to this post, some of the greatest minds in physics are a bunch of delusional nut cases.
I never did see the need to choose between evolution and creation science. I always thought both went so far from 'hard science backed by math' that it didn't' really matter to me where they ended up.
i don't have a problem with 'god made the universe through the processes described in evolution'. My problem was always, "you moved from resistant bacteria to ....WHAT?!"
The problem i have with the few creation scientists with whom I have spoken was with them using sloppier science than the evolutionists they wanted to disprove.
Forcing bacteria to resist antibiotics has long been an unfortunate implication of evolution.
silly me, your right. let's get right on that experiment.
antibiotic resistant bacteria certainly proves that particles, atoms, energy.... left to themselves will organize into the universe we are in today, complete with liquid goo in a sac that turns itself into a butterfly. oh, yea, and that 'non materialistic' thing we were referring to as 'intelligence' which doesn't actually exist.
gee, you really got me on that one.
I don't know where the physicists and mathematicians (MINUS philosophy and emotional investment in the non existence of a god) are today on this subject, but I know that several years ago I was hard pressed to find one physicists who would acknowledge that evolution is a good solid theory of how all this got here. from what i could see it was the biologists and cosmologists.... who held to the evolution theory. That is why i asked for the names of physicists (past or present) who have contributed major theories, proofs..., that have resulted in furthering our understanding of physics (not biology or philosophy or cosmology) Gee, it seems to me that, according to this post, some of the greatest minds in physics are a bunch of delusional nut cases.
I never did see the need to choose between evolution and creation science. I always thought both went so far from 'hard science backed by math' that it didn't' really matter to me where they ended up.
i don't have a problem with 'god made the universe through the processes described in evolution'. My problem was always, "you moved from resistant bacteria to ....WHAT?!"
The problem i have with the few creation scientists with whom I have spoken was with them using sloppier science than the evolutionists they wanted to disprove.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 01:09 PM)
silly me, your right. let's get right on that experiment.
antibiotic resistant bacteria certainly proves that particles, atoms, energy.... left to themselves will organize into the universe we are in today, complete with liquid goo in a sac that turns itself into a butterfly. oh, yea, and that 'non materialistic' thing we were referring to as 'intelligence' which doesn't actually exist.
Again, you are confusing abiogenesis and cosmology with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. There is no way to explain why all living organisms on this planet are related through DNA without evolution.
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with. What mathematical model would you propose to explain the phenomena that evolution describes? Math works the best with discrete quantities. Biology has no discrete quantities. I will say it again, what part of evolution do you disagree with?
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with. What mathematical model would you propose to explain the phenomena that evolution describes? Math works the best with discrete quantities. Biology has no discrete quantities. I will say it again, what part of evolution do you disagree with?
i don't have a problem with 'god made the universe through the processes described in evolution'. My problem was always, "you moved from resistant bacteria to ....WHAT?!"
The basis of evolution is this: Organisms reproduce. Organisms mutate when they reproduce. Beneficial mutations enable organisms to become more successful. Harmful mutations cause organisms to be less successful. What about this statement violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
Again, creationists don't practice science, they practice shouting.
That's specious. Why? Who says we're "lowering" ourselves to their level? That's a invalid value judgement.
I indicated that the tactics religion uses (essentially peer pressure) are effective. Check just about any forum in this country frequented by the general public and if this topic comes up, you'll see TONS of religionists decry (in outrageously BS ways) atheists as evil. There was a movement in my community to ban atheists from jury duty for example. That sort of thing keeps atheists (who are mostly pussies in my view) from speaking their minds. Give the same thing back to them. Atheists need to rally/band together. They need institutional organizations to promote reason and provide secular fellowship. These things that religionists use (for thousands of years now) ARE proven methods.
That's specious. Why? Who says we're "lowering" ourselves to their level? That's a invalid value judgement.
I indicated that the tactics religion uses (essentially peer pressure) are effective. Check just about any forum in this country frequented by the general public and if this topic comes up, you'll see TONS of religionists decry (in outrageously BS ways) atheists as evil. There was a movement in my community to ban atheists from jury duty for example. That sort of thing keeps atheists (who are mostly pussies in my view) from speaking their minds. Give the same thing back to them. Atheists need to rally/band together. They need institutional organizations to promote reason and provide secular fellowship. These things that religionists use (for thousands of years now) ARE proven methods.
You're substituting one absolute regime with another.
So? I'm substituting truth arrived at by reason for BS at least. Marx and Engels are to be admired for their discussions regarding this subject.
While comedy in general can be quite illuminating on certain subjects, I'm afraid my taste doesn't run too much toward cartoons with lots of farting.
While comedy in general can be quite illuminating on certain subjects, I'm afraid my taste doesn't run too much toward cartoons with lots of farting.
Removing religion won't remove conflict from the world, and it won't remove the noise from science.
You're right. It will not remove conflict. Just religious-based conflict. It won't remove noise from science either ... just supernatural noise. Both are worthy of the effort.
Reason must inevitably prevail. When it finally does then we'll have no nuts. That's the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies and society. It isn't perfect, but everything is better without nuts. Nuts are best when consumed on their own. Mixing them in with superior foods is folly.
OMG. You're masquerading as a reasonable person. This is EXACTLY what ignorant creationist say. So ... here's the deal. These things take TENS OF MILLIONS of years to come to fruition. It is a process that is so slow that most humans have a hard time imagining it. That's why any reading about speciation should start with the Galapagos Islands. There are multiple species of finches in the Galapagos that are distinct even though the only difference from one to another is beak shape/length. Finches and finches can be different species. You don't have to have a chimp mutate into a man as that IGNORANT question tries to suggest.
I'm done reading anything else from you. It's clear now where you're coming from. You're an ID promoter disguising themselves as something else.
antibiotic resistant bacteria certainly proves that particles, atoms, energy.... left to themselves will organize into the universe we are in today, complete with liquid goo in a sac that turns itself into a butterfly. oh, yea, and that 'non materialistic' thing we were referring to as 'intelligence' which doesn't actually exist.
Again, you are confusing abiogenesis and cosmology with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. There is no way to explain why all living organisms on this planet are related through DNA without evolution.
QUOTE
I don't know where the physicists and mathematicians (MINUS philosophy and emotional investment in the non existence of a god) are today on this subject, but I know that several years ago I was hard pressed to find one physicists who would acknowledge that evolution is a good solid theory of how all this got here. from what i could see it was the biologists and cosmologists.... who held to the evolution theory. That is why i asked for the names of physicists (past or present) who have contributed major theories, proofs..., that have resulted in furthering our understanding of physics (not biology or philosophy or cosmology) Gee, it seems to me that, according to this post, some of the greatest minds in physics are a bunch of delusional nut cases.
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with. What mathematical model would you propose to explain the phenomena that evolution describes? Math works the best with discrete quantities. Biology has no discrete quantities. I will say it again, what part of evolution do you disagree with?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't know where the physicists and mathematicians (MINUS philosophy and emotional investment in the non existence of a god) are today on this subject, but I know that several years ago I was hard pressed to find one physicists who would acknowledge that evolution is a good solid theory of how all this got here. from what i could see it was the biologists and cosmologists.... who held to the evolution theory. That is why i asked for the names of physicists (past or present) who have contributed major theories, proofs..., that have resulted in furthering our understanding of physics (not biology or philosophy or cosmology) Gee, it seems to me that, according to this post, some of the greatest minds in physics are a bunch of delusional nut cases. |
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with. What mathematical model would you propose to explain the phenomena that evolution describes? Math works the best with discrete quantities. Biology has no discrete quantities. I will say it again, what part of evolution do you disagree with?
i don't have a problem with 'god made the universe through the processes described in evolution'. My problem was always, "you moved from resistant bacteria to ....WHAT?!"
The basis of evolution is this: Organisms reproduce. Organisms mutate when they reproduce. Beneficial mutations enable organisms to become more successful. Harmful mutations cause organisms to be less successful. What about this statement violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
QUOTE
The problem i have with the few creation scientists with whom I have spoken was with them using sloppier science than the evolutionists they wanted to disprove.
Again, creationists don't practice science, they practice shouting.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 01:07 PM)
And illogic has no place in science. Science is excellent at marginalizing what it considers nutters. More than excellent actually, they're the biggest experts EvAh in the art of marginalizing.
And since they're marginalized they'll have no forum to spout that stupidity.
Subversion is dishonest and essentially cowardly. Their tactics are tried and true. They work. Science needs to recognize that fact and utilize those tools. Not doing so would be illogical.
Good. No ... GREAT. Let them. A socio-cultural war is what is needed. Let's win the small battle amongst scientists first and go on from there to wipe these stupidities from human culture. They'll be bringing knives to a gun fight.
Takes too long. Any such effort would be multi-generational and susceptible to corruption itself due to the length of time. I advocate a direct assault with all available weapons at the ready and used indiscriminately. Ultimately, such a thing might actually come down to actual real violence. If that is necessary then I'm on board with it. I guarantee that religionists would fight for their beliefs (cripes ... they're all fired up to fight within their own sects ... i.e.. Islam v Judeo-Xtianity). Secular people need to be prepared to do the same.
Generating animosity is a bad way to go. If we lower ourselves to their level, then we defeat the purpose of removing religion in the first place. You're substituting one absolute regime with another. Did you ever see the South Park episode about atheism? You should. Removing religion won't remove conflict from the world, and it won't remove the noise from science. The reason? Human Nature. No amount of effort will remove the nuts from the world, all you're doing is changing the flavor.
And since they're marginalized they'll have no forum to spout that stupidity.
Subversion is dishonest and essentially cowardly. Their tactics are tried and true. They work. Science needs to recognize that fact and utilize those tools. Not doing so would be illogical.
Good. No ... GREAT. Let them. A socio-cultural war is what is needed. Let's win the small battle amongst scientists first and go on from there to wipe these stupidities from human culture. They'll be bringing knives to a gun fight.
Takes too long. Any such effort would be multi-generational and susceptible to corruption itself due to the length of time. I advocate a direct assault with all available weapons at the ready and used indiscriminately. Ultimately, such a thing might actually come down to actual real violence. If that is necessary then I'm on board with it. I guarantee that religionists would fight for their beliefs (cripes ... they're all fired up to fight within their own sects ... i.e.. Islam v Judeo-Xtianity). Secular people need to be prepared to do the same.
Generating animosity is a bad way to go. If we lower ourselves to their level, then we defeat the purpose of removing religion in the first place. You're substituting one absolute regime with another. Did you ever see the South Park episode about atheism? You should. Removing religion won't remove conflict from the world, and it won't remove the noise from science. The reason? Human Nature. No amount of effort will remove the nuts from the world, all you're doing is changing the flavor.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 05:20 PM)
Again, you are confusing abiogenesis and cosmology with evolution. They are NOT the same thing. There is no way to explain why all living organisms on this planet are related through DNA without evolution.
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with.
Ok, so i was wrong. evolution as far as mutations is concerned is there. but making a completely new species??
but we got here from a collection of particles or atoms to where we are now?? hardly hard science, it is just the best science can do, whatever the terminology of the particular branch of science.
i don't have to interject God into science to state that science simply cannot explain how we got here. scientifically, we simply just don't know.
what is so dreadful about the fact that science cannot explain how we came about, but here is the best guess we have thus far? why is that such a fearful proposition?
thermodynamics - no one can seem to explain how or why the universe would move from atoms to the order we see today. actually it is interesting that the bible speaks of the 'earth winding down' which appears to follow thermodynamics better than chaos to order.
OK, science=reason, logic. how is it logical or reasonable to demand that nothing can exist outside of our ability to comprehend, reason, or grasp with science??
it is simply not logical to dismiss that which human beings cannot understand. No it is not science (i don't think i ever said it is)---- how does if follow that it cannot exist?
keep god and the supernatural and spiritual matters out of science - as it should be because there is no place for it in science.
but to demand that it cannot exist if we cannot understand it is absurd.
You aren't being clear as to what exactly you disagree with.
Ok, so i was wrong. evolution as far as mutations is concerned is there. but making a completely new species??
but we got here from a collection of particles or atoms to where we are now?? hardly hard science, it is just the best science can do, whatever the terminology of the particular branch of science.
i don't have to interject God into science to state that science simply cannot explain how we got here. scientifically, we simply just don't know.
what is so dreadful about the fact that science cannot explain how we came about, but here is the best guess we have thus far? why is that such a fearful proposition?
thermodynamics - no one can seem to explain how or why the universe would move from atoms to the order we see today. actually it is interesting that the bible speaks of the 'earth winding down' which appears to follow thermodynamics better than chaos to order.
OK, science=reason, logic. how is it logical or reasonable to demand that nothing can exist outside of our ability to comprehend, reason, or grasp with science??
it is simply not logical to dismiss that which human beings cannot understand. No it is not science (i don't think i ever said it is)---- how does if follow that it cannot exist?
keep god and the supernatural and spiritual matters out of science - as it should be because there is no place for it in science.
but to demand that it cannot exist if we cannot understand it is absurd.
QUOTE
If we lower ourselves to their level, then we defeat the purpose of removing religion in the first place.
That's specious. Why? Who says we're "lowering" ourselves to their level? That's a invalid value judgement.
I indicated that the tactics religion uses (essentially peer pressure) are effective. Check just about any forum in this country frequented by the general public and if this topic comes up, you'll see TONS of religionists decry (in outrageously BS ways) atheists as evil. There was a movement in my community to ban atheists from jury duty for example. That sort of thing keeps atheists (who are mostly pussies in my view) from speaking their minds. Give the same thing back to them. Atheists need to rally/band together. They need institutional organizations to promote reason and provide secular fellowship. These things that religionists use (for thousands of years now) ARE proven methods.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we lower ourselves to their level, then we defeat the purpose of removing religion in the first place. |
That's specious. Why? Who says we're "lowering" ourselves to their level? That's a invalid value judgement.
I indicated that the tactics religion uses (essentially peer pressure) are effective. Check just about any forum in this country frequented by the general public and if this topic comes up, you'll see TONS of religionists decry (in outrageously BS ways) atheists as evil. There was a movement in my community to ban atheists from jury duty for example. That sort of thing keeps atheists (who are mostly pussies in my view) from speaking their minds. Give the same thing back to them. Atheists need to rally/band together. They need institutional organizations to promote reason and provide secular fellowship. These things that religionists use (for thousands of years now) ARE proven methods.
You're substituting one absolute regime with another.
So? I'm substituting truth arrived at by reason for BS at least. Marx and Engels are to be admired for their discussions regarding this subject.
QUOTE
Did you ever see the South Park episode about atheism? You should.
While comedy in general can be quite illuminating on certain subjects, I'm afraid my taste doesn't run too much toward cartoons with lots of farting.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you ever see the South Park episode about atheism? You should. |
While comedy in general can be quite illuminating on certain subjects, I'm afraid my taste doesn't run too much toward cartoons with lots of farting.
Removing religion won't remove conflict from the world, and it won't remove the noise from science.
You're right. It will not remove conflict. Just religious-based conflict. It won't remove noise from science either ... just supernatural noise. Both are worthy of the effort.
QUOTE
No amount of effort will remove the nuts from the world, all you're doing is changing the flavor.
Reason must inevitably prevail. When it finally does then we'll have no nuts. That's the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies and society. It isn't perfect, but everything is better without nuts. Nuts are best when consumed on their own. Mixing them in with superior foods is folly.
QUOTE
Ok, so i was wrong. evolution as far as mutations is concerned is there. but making a completely new species??
OMG. You're masquerading as a reasonable person. This is EXACTLY what ignorant creationist say. So ... here's the deal. These things take TENS OF MILLIONS of years to come to fruition. It is a process that is so slow that most humans have a hard time imagining it. That's why any reading about speciation should start with the Galapagos Islands. There are multiple species of finches in the Galapagos that are distinct even though the only difference from one to another is beak shape/length. Finches and finches can be different species. You don't have to have a chimp mutate into a man as that IGNORANT question tries to suggest.
I'm done reading anything else from you. It's clear now where you're coming from. You're an ID promoter disguising themselves as something else.
rpenner
God is the source of all that exists, good or evil. He is the source just the same as you would be as a parent of a child. Your child can grow up to do good or evil. That is the nature of freewill. If your child grows up to kill thousands are you the source of that evil?
Nothing in nature is evil by design. It is the intent of those using the design of nature that produces good or evil. It should be obvious that in God’s design, freewill is of prime importance. God’s intent is of course for good.
You should also realize that all things must balance and that there are results of actions of good or evil. The requirement of balance should be obvious to anyone in science. You will never know or understand anything that you do not seek. Since God is the creator of all that exists how do you expect to understand that creation by not understanding or knowing the creator. The understanding of physics is through an understanding of the nature of all that is seen and unseen.
QUOTE
So God is the source of utter evil, total maliciousness, chocolate flavoring, fluorescent midnight blue and deviant sexual partnering when you two say He is the source of all attributes? Or is some other co-equal god the source of these attributes, which clearly are not merely the absence of good?
God is the source of all that exists, good or evil. He is the source just the same as you would be as a parent of a child. Your child can grow up to do good or evil. That is the nature of freewill. If your child grows up to kill thousands are you the source of that evil?
Nothing in nature is evil by design. It is the intent of those using the design of nature that produces good or evil. It should be obvious that in God’s design, freewill is of prime importance. God’s intent is of course for good.
You should also realize that all things must balance and that there are results of actions of good or evil. The requirement of balance should be obvious to anyone in science. You will never know or understand anything that you do not seek. Since God is the creator of all that exists how do you expect to understand that creation by not understanding or knowing the creator. The understanding of physics is through an understanding of the nature of all that is seen and unseen.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 02:27 PM)
Ok, so i was wrong. evolution as far as mutations is concerned is there. but making a completely new species??
Take it one step at a time.
First step, what separates one species from another?
Let's say that two organisms are different species when they can no longer successfully breed together.
So, given one species that has spent several thousand years divided (geographically or by separate niches) into two or more parts, the genetic diversity of the two groups increases. Either by length of time, or by some population-reducing catastrophe, the two populations will be different enough to not be able to breed. Without gene flow, the two new species will only grow further apart.
Evolution is a fascinating science, and I think that you are dismissing it without knowing all the facts.
Take it one step at a time.
First step, what separates one species from another?
Let's say that two organisms are different species when they can no longer successfully breed together.
So, given one species that has spent several thousand years divided (geographically or by separate niches) into two or more parts, the genetic diversity of the two groups increases. Either by length of time, or by some population-reducing catastrophe, the two populations will be different enough to not be able to breed. Without gene flow, the two new species will only grow further apart.
Evolution is a fascinating science, and I think that you are dismissing it without knowing all the facts.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 29 2009, 07:15 PM)
God’s intent is of course for good.
Always good times to see adherents define their god's intent. And by "good times" of course I mean "enlightening of their stupidity". Hopefully, in response we'll get to see the part where Yahweh said, "I create everything "for good." Is that in Genesis? Or Proverbs? Or perhaps it's in the book that Mushroom Man wrote? Give us a quote that "proves" it eh? I can never get enough KJV quotes! And of course by "I can never get enough" I mean "I need a good laugh".
Always good times to see adherents define their god's intent. And by "good times" of course I mean "enlightening of their stupidity". Hopefully, in response we'll get to see the part where Yahweh said, "I create everything "for good." Is that in Genesis? Or Proverbs? Or perhaps it's in the book that Mushroom Man wrote? Give us a quote that "proves" it eh? I can never get enough KJV quotes! And of course by "I can never get enough" I mean "I need a good laugh".
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 07:20 PM)
Let's say that two organisms are different species when they can no longer successfully breed together.
That's an unacceptably narrow definition which is in general rejected by Biologists. I could be nice and say it's close but I won't.
That's an unacceptably narrow definition which is in general rejected by Biologists. I could be nice and say it's close but I won't.
QUOTE (tlocity+Sep 29 2009, 07:15 PM)
rpenner
God is the source of all that exists, good or evil. He is the source just the same as you would be as a parent of a child. Your child can grow up to do good or evil. That is the nature of freewill. If your child grows up to kill thousands are you the source of that evil?
Nothing in nature is evil by design. It is the intent of those using the design of nature that produces good or evil. It should be obvious that in God’s design, freewill is of prime importance. God’s intent is of course for good.
You should also realize that all things must balance and that there are results of actions of good or evil. The requirement of balance should be obvious to anyone in science. You will never know or understand anything that you do not seek. Since God is the creator of all that exists how do you expect to understand that creation by not understanding or knowing the creator. The understanding of physics is through an understanding of the nature of all that is seen and unseen.
wow, what are you doing on this forum??
I think more along... physics is understood through mathematics, well, and some 'i see it'. but an understanding of God is through that which is seen....
romans - 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...
i read a story of Helen Keller, dont' know if it is true. that when she could finally communicate, her teacher told her about God. her reply was that she already knew Him, just didn't have a name.
i will try to stay on long enough to get a more negative rating.... but it really seems not such a good use of my time.
God is the source of all that exists, good or evil. He is the source just the same as you would be as a parent of a child. Your child can grow up to do good or evil. That is the nature of freewill. If your child grows up to kill thousands are you the source of that evil?
Nothing in nature is evil by design. It is the intent of those using the design of nature that produces good or evil. It should be obvious that in God’s design, freewill is of prime importance. God’s intent is of course for good.
You should also realize that all things must balance and that there are results of actions of good or evil. The requirement of balance should be obvious to anyone in science. You will never know or understand anything that you do not seek. Since God is the creator of all that exists how do you expect to understand that creation by not understanding or knowing the creator. The understanding of physics is through an understanding of the nature of all that is seen and unseen.
wow, what are you doing on this forum??
I think more along... physics is understood through mathematics, well, and some 'i see it'. but an understanding of God is through that which is seen....
romans - 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made...
i read a story of Helen Keller, dont' know if it is true. that when she could finally communicate, her teacher told her about God. her reply was that she already knew Him, just didn't have a name.
i will try to stay on long enough to get a more negative rating.... but it really seems not such a good use of my time.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 02:51 PM)
So? I'm substituting truth arrived at by reason for BS at least. Marx and Engels are to be admired for their discussions regarding this subject.
The USA is based on personal freedom. Removing the choice to be deluded would be a violation of inalienable rights.
So instead of fundies, you have 9/11 truthers. Not much of an improvement. What makes a truther better than a fundie?
So instead of fundies, you have 9/11 truthers. Not much of an improvement. What makes a truther better than a fundie?
Reason must inevitably prevail. When it finally does then we'll have no nuts. That's the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies and society. It isn't perfect, but everything is better without nuts. Nuts are best when consumed on their own. Mixing them in with superior foods is folly.
Must? You're talking about humans right?
If we do it your way, we will lose in the court of public opinion. We already have the "angry atheist" stereotype to contend with, this will make it worse.
But you liked the monkey video better?
yes
how come nobody will respond to my post? page 11
What post?
The USA is based on personal freedom. Removing the choice to be deluded would be a violation of inalienable rights.
QUOTE
You're right. It will not remove conflict. Just religious-based conflict. It won't remove noise from science either ... just supernatural noise. Both are worthy of the effort.
So instead of fundies, you have 9/11 truthers. Not much of an improvement. What makes a truther better than a fundie?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're right. It will not remove conflict. Just religious-based conflict. It won't remove noise from science either ... just supernatural noise. Both are worthy of the effort. |
So instead of fundies, you have 9/11 truthers. Not much of an improvement. What makes a truther better than a fundie?
Reason must inevitably prevail. When it finally does then we'll have no nuts. That's the best recipe for chocolate chip cookies and society. It isn't perfect, but everything is better without nuts. Nuts are best when consumed on their own. Mixing them in with superior foods is folly.
Must? You're talking about humans right?
If we do it your way, we will lose in the court of public opinion. We already have the "angry atheist" stereotype to contend with, this will make it worse.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 03:31 PM)
That's an unacceptably narrow definition which is in general rejected by Biologists. I could be nice and say it's close but I won't.
I'm trying to explain evolution in a concise manner. Let's keep the nitty gritty details for a more advanced discussion.
I'm trying to explain evolution in a concise manner. Let's keep the nitty gritty details for a more advanced discussion.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 07:20 PM)
Take it one step at a time.
First step, what separates one species from another?
Let's say that two organisms are different species when they can no longer successfully breed together.
So, given one species that has spent several thousand years divided (geographically or by separate niches) into two or more parts, the genetic diversity of the two groups increases. Either by length of time, or by some population-reducing catastrophe, the two populations will be different enough to not be able to breed. Without gene flow, the two new species will only grow further apart.
Evolution is a fascinating science, and I think that you are dismissing it without knowing all the facts.
ok, so they cannot breed. but to go from a collection of atoms to what we see now??
or to go from a dinosaur into a bird? There simply does not exist on this planet the scientific explanation of what you propose.
why can't science be unable to explain the origins and complexity of our planet? why invest so much emotionally in the insistence that it can when it simply has yet to happen? why invest so much in something that has not happened and that we cannot know if or when it will happen?
study it, teach it, promote it, but gee, at least acknowledge the incredible limitations and obvious leaps one must take to move from a mix of atoms, or better yet, particles, to this level of complexity. Heck, we can't even understand the workings of our own brains, how a butterfly changes from liquid to beauty in flight in a matter of days.... why would we insist we can understand how we got here from ----- energy? particles? or whatever.
First step, what separates one species from another?
Let's say that two organisms are different species when they can no longer successfully breed together.
So, given one species that has spent several thousand years divided (geographically or by separate niches) into two or more parts, the genetic diversity of the two groups increases. Either by length of time, or by some population-reducing catastrophe, the two populations will be different enough to not be able to breed. Without gene flow, the two new species will only grow further apart.
Evolution is a fascinating science, and I think that you are dismissing it without knowing all the facts.
ok, so they cannot breed. but to go from a collection of atoms to what we see now??
or to go from a dinosaur into a bird? There simply does not exist on this planet the scientific explanation of what you propose.
why can't science be unable to explain the origins and complexity of our planet? why invest so much emotionally in the insistence that it can when it simply has yet to happen? why invest so much in something that has not happened and that we cannot know if or when it will happen?
study it, teach it, promote it, but gee, at least acknowledge the incredible limitations and obvious leaps one must take to move from a mix of atoms, or better yet, particles, to this level of complexity. Heck, we can't even understand the workings of our own brains, how a butterfly changes from liquid to beauty in flight in a matter of days.... why would we insist we can understand how we got here from ----- energy? particles? or whatever.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 07:40 PM)
We already have the "angry atheist" stereotype to contend with, this will make it worse.
probably not as bad as the stereotype i contend with, however well deserved
probably not as bad as the stereotype i contend with, however well deserved
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 03:46 PM)
why can't science be unable to explain the origins and complexity of our planet? why invest so much emotionally in the insistence that it can when it simply has yet to happen? why invest so much in something that has not happened and that we cannot know if or when it will happen?
study it, teach it, promote it, but gee, at least acknowledge the incredible limitations and obvious leaps one must take to move from a mix of atoms, or better yet, particles, to this level of complexity. Heck, we can't even understand the workings of our own brains, how a butterfly changes from liquid to beauty in flight in a matter of days.... why would we insist we can understand how we got here from ----- energy? particles? or whatever.
You obviously aren't very familiar with the theory of evolution, since you are basing your counter-arguments on common fallacies and misconceptions.
Evolution takes place over EXTREMELY long time periods. Thousands of generations are required to see any major changes.
Get that book that I recommended. It's an excellent resource on evolution and the body of evidence surrounding it.
Do you look at a seed and wonder how it turns into a tree? Do you look at an embryo and wonder how it turns into an adult human being? Life is about small beginnings and time. Read up on evolution, it's a fascinating theory.
study it, teach it, promote it, but gee, at least acknowledge the incredible limitations and obvious leaps one must take to move from a mix of atoms, or better yet, particles, to this level of complexity. Heck, we can't even understand the workings of our own brains, how a butterfly changes from liquid to beauty in flight in a matter of days.... why would we insist we can understand how we got here from ----- energy? particles? or whatever.
You obviously aren't very familiar with the theory of evolution, since you are basing your counter-arguments on common fallacies and misconceptions.
Evolution takes place over EXTREMELY long time periods. Thousands of generations are required to see any major changes.
Get that book that I recommended. It's an excellent resource on evolution and the body of evidence surrounding it.
QUOTE
ok, so they cannot breed. but to go from a collection of atoms to what we see now??
or to go from a dinosaur into a bird? There simply does not exist on this planet the scientific explanation of what you propose.
or to go from a dinosaur into a bird? There simply does not exist on this planet the scientific explanation of what you propose.
Do you look at a seed and wonder how it turns into a tree? Do you look at an embryo and wonder how it turns into an adult human being? Life is about small beginnings and time. Read up on evolution, it's a fascinating theory.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 07:52 PM)
You obviously aren't very familiar with the theory of evolution, since you are basing your counter-arguments on common fallacies and misconceptions.
Evolution takes place over EXTREMELY long time periods. Thousands of generations are required to see any major changes.
Get that book that I recommended. It's an excellent resource on evolution and the body of evidence surrounding it.
Do you look at a seed and wonder how it turns into a tree? Do you look at an embryo and wonder how it turns into an adult human being? Life is about small beginnings and time. Read up on evolution, it's a fascinating theory.
ok, fine. i'll read the book. should be a much better use of my time. i have spent way to much here. not directed at you-------- never been on a forum before, and since i am self employed.... this could get really out of hand (time management)
i will order the book before i get off of here... wait, what was the name of it??
Evolution takes place over EXTREMELY long time periods. Thousands of generations are required to see any major changes.
Get that book that I recommended. It's an excellent resource on evolution and the body of evidence surrounding it.
Do you look at a seed and wonder how it turns into a tree? Do you look at an embryo and wonder how it turns into an adult human being? Life is about small beginnings and time. Read up on evolution, it's a fascinating theory.
ok, fine. i'll read the book. should be a much better use of my time. i have spent way to much here. not directed at you-------- never been on a forum before, and since i am self employed.... this could get really out of hand (time management)
i will order the book before i get off of here... wait, what was the name of it??
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 29 2009, 04:02 PM)
ok, fine. i'll read the book. should be a much better use of my time. i have spent way to much here. not directed at you-------- never been on a forum before, and since i am self employed.... this could get really out of hand (time management)
i will order the book before i get off of here... wait, what was the name of it??
i will order the book before i get off of here... wait, what was the name of it??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 29 2009, 02:24 PM)
Actually, I would say that I think his purpose was to say that religious people don't need to see god and science as mutually exclusive. That doesn't mean that he believes in god, it just means that he thinks that religious people don't have to lose their faith to believe in science.
I agree with him on that, even though I think that the concept of god is silly. Religious people are still people, and many of them are intelligent. God is simply a very popular misconception that people don't want to give up. I don't see a problem with the existence of religion as long as they don't do bad things with it.
Thank you flyingbuttressman, this is exactly what i meant by my post.
I am sorry that in the way i typed it, it was easily missunderstood.
Thank you again.
I agree with him on that, even though I think that the concept of god is silly. Religious people are still people, and many of them are intelligent. God is simply a very popular misconception that people don't want to give up. I don't see a problem with the existence of religion as long as they don't do bad things with it.
Thank you flyingbuttressman, this is exactly what i meant by my post.
I am sorry that in the way i typed it, it was easily missunderstood.
Thank you again.
IF we cannot explain something with science. It does not logically follow that it does not exist.
i don't try to fit god into science nor do i try to fit science into god.
nor do i attempt to understand intelligence and reasoning with science. we simply do not have the hard science to comprehend how we got here or why we are set apart from the animals in the ability to reason.
science is a system of acquiring knowledge and understanding. (one def.) we are trying to understand that which we observe in the physical world. We are learning about that which we know, with reasonable certainty, exists (that which we can measure (force), detect (particles), observe (effects of fields....). in contrast to philosophy ( a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means, one def. )
science is learning about that which exists in the physical world. If one attempts to use it to explain or quantify or even provide evidence for, something that 'might' exist outside that physical world they will likely appear rather foolish to say the least. this makes them foolish and has no bearing on the validity of science. no more than my use of a feather to hammer a nail says anything about the feather. Nor does it say anything about the nail.
our physical world is not 'governed by our science'. our science is our tool to discover what does govern the physical world. We didn't create forces and we haven't yet been able to fully understand them. The earth was round long before we got smart enough to understand differently. To claim that something cannot exist if it does not fit into science is incredibly limiting to say the least. Why do we insist on assuming that 'we have arrived' intellectually - that we 'know'. This fits into the same catagory as 'eventually we will know given enough time'. What is our frame of reference? seems to me we are back to the solar system revolving around us.
i don't try to fit god into science nor do i try to fit science into god.
nor do i attempt to understand intelligence and reasoning with science. we simply do not have the hard science to comprehend how we got here or why we are set apart from the animals in the ability to reason.
science is a system of acquiring knowledge and understanding. (one def.) we are trying to understand that which we observe in the physical world. We are learning about that which we know, with reasonable certainty, exists (that which we can measure (force), detect (particles), observe (effects of fields....). in contrast to philosophy ( a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means, one def. )
science is learning about that which exists in the physical world. If one attempts to use it to explain or quantify or even provide evidence for, something that 'might' exist outside that physical world they will likely appear rather foolish to say the least. this makes them foolish and has no bearing on the validity of science. no more than my use of a feather to hammer a nail says anything about the feather. Nor does it say anything about the nail.
our physical world is not 'governed by our science'. our science is our tool to discover what does govern the physical world. We didn't create forces and we haven't yet been able to fully understand them. The earth was round long before we got smart enough to understand differently. To claim that something cannot exist if it does not fit into science is incredibly limiting to say the least. Why do we insist on assuming that 'we have arrived' intellectually - that we 'know'. This fits into the same catagory as 'eventually we will know given enough time'. What is our frame of reference? seems to me we are back to the solar system revolving around us.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 30 2009, 01:26 PM)
i don't try to fit god into science nor do i try to fit science into god.
nor do i attempt to understand intelligence and reasoning with science. we simply do not have the hard science to comprehend how we got here or why we are set apart from the animals in the ability to reason.
What makes you think that we cannot explain intelligence? Our brains are significantly larger with relation to our body size than most other animals on Earth. This give us significantly more processing power than other animals, but our brains are no more sophisticated structurally than an apes. Intelligence is a mental construct that gives us our sense of identity and individuality, but it's not very different from the mind of a dolphin or a chimpanzee.
Our earlier debate around intelligence had a significant misunderstanding. You seem to think that intelligence is above and beyond what other animals are capable of. I think that intelligence is an attribute that we give ourselves out of pride, but it's not grounded on any kind of real observation or clear definition.
nor do i attempt to understand intelligence and reasoning with science. we simply do not have the hard science to comprehend how we got here or why we are set apart from the animals in the ability to reason.
What makes you think that we cannot explain intelligence? Our brains are significantly larger with relation to our body size than most other animals on Earth. This give us significantly more processing power than other animals, but our brains are no more sophisticated structurally than an apes. Intelligence is a mental construct that gives us our sense of identity and individuality, but it's not very different from the mind of a dolphin or a chimpanzee.
Our earlier debate around intelligence had a significant misunderstanding. You seem to think that intelligence is above and beyond what other animals are capable of. I think that intelligence is an attribute that we give ourselves out of pride, but it's not grounded on any kind of real observation or clear definition.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 05:33 PM)
What makes you think that we cannot explain intelligence? Our brains are significantly larger with relation to our body size than most other animals on Earth. This give us significantly more processing power than other animals, but our brains are no more sophisticated structurally than an apes. Intelligence is a mental construct that gives us our sense of identity and individuality, but it's not very different from the mind of a dolphin or a chimpanzee.
Our earlier debate around intelligence had a significant misunderstanding. You seem to think that intelligence is above and beyond what other animals are capable of. I think that intelligence is an attribute that we give ourselves out of pride, but it's not grounded on any kind of real observation or clear definition.
i think i said we are the only inhabitants who can reason, as far as we know.
we can explain intelligence, define it, observe the effects of it, but we don't really understand the mechanism and 'how it works'.
Our earlier debate around intelligence had a significant misunderstanding. You seem to think that intelligence is above and beyond what other animals are capable of. I think that intelligence is an attribute that we give ourselves out of pride, but it's not grounded on any kind of real observation or clear definition.
i think i said we are the only inhabitants who can reason, as far as we know.
we can explain intelligence, define it, observe the effects of it, but we don't really understand the mechanism and 'how it works'.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 30 2009, 04:00 PM)
i think i said we are the only inhabitants who can reason, as far as we know.
we can explain intelligence, define it, observe the effects of it, but we don't really understand the mechanism and 'how it works'.
There are degrees of reason. Some breeds of dogs can count and dolphins are known for a plethora of tricks.
An explanation of the brain's inner workings is forthcoming in the next few years, and I look forward to the day when we can model brain activity within a computer.
we can explain intelligence, define it, observe the effects of it, but we don't really understand the mechanism and 'how it works'.
There are degrees of reason. Some breeds of dogs can count and dolphins are known for a plethora of tricks.
An explanation of the brain's inner workings is forthcoming in the next few years, and I look forward to the day when we can model brain activity within a computer.
We have the intellectual capacity to know that we can know the origins of the universe but have yet to develop an experiment to prove that animals can reason. sounds like we need to work more on our reasoning abilities.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 30 2009, 04:47 PM)
We have the intellectual capacity to know that we can know the origins of the universe but have yet to develop an experiment to prove that animals can reason. sounds like we need to work more on our reasoning abilities.
You continue to use words that are not scientifically accurate. "Reason" and "intelligence" are measurable in degrees, not as a have-it/don't-have-it attribute. "Reason" is just something that we are better at than other animals.
You continue to use words that are not scientifically accurate. "Reason" and "intelligence" are measurable in degrees, not as a have-it/don't-have-it attribute. "Reason" is just something that we are better at than other animals.
I totaly disagree. You either have it or you dont. Sorry animal.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 30 2009, 05:07 PM)
I totaly disagree. You either have it or you dont. Sorry animal.
Does the sun also revolve around the Earth? Or maybe it just revolves around your giant ego?
Does the sun also revolve around the Earth? Or maybe it just revolves around your giant ego?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 08:59 PM)
"Reason" and "intelligence" are measurable in degrees, not as a have-it/don't-have-it attribute. "Reason" is just something that we are better at than other animals.
Ok, then we no not yet have the degree of intellectual capacity to devise experiments that will prove that animals have a degree of reason.
Ok, then we no not yet have the degree of intellectual capacity to devise experiments that will prove that animals have a degree of reason.
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 30 2009, 05:34 PM)
Ok, then we no not yet have the degree of intellectual capacity to devise experiments that will prove that animals have a degree of reason.
If you observe a gorilla demonstrate that he understands that 1 banana + 2 bananas = 3 bananas, then how is that not a demonstration of reason?
If you observe a gorilla demonstrate that he understands that 1 banana + 2 bananas = 3 bananas, then how is that not a demonstration of reason?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 09:44 PM)
If you observe a gorilla demonstrate that he understands that 1 banana + 2 bananas = 3 bananas, then how is that not a demonstration of reason?
i think i said experimental proof. either way, my lab can understand when 3 birds have been downed and knows not to look for more after bringing in the third.
I had a dog I took out and shot a field lark for practice. the dog went to retrieve, took one look at the bird, looked at me like I was an idiot, and walked off. very intelligent dog in my book. Woofie demonstrated the ability to distinguish game birds from other birds, and this distinction had not previously been 'taught'.
all these demonstrates don't bring us to a consensus that animals can reason.
I restate the original, we still haven't achieved the degree of intellectual capacity to devise an experiment that can prove what you know to be true from your observations.
i think i said experimental proof. either way, my lab can understand when 3 birds have been downed and knows not to look for more after bringing in the third.
I had a dog I took out and shot a field lark for practice. the dog went to retrieve, took one look at the bird, looked at me like I was an idiot, and walked off. very intelligent dog in my book. Woofie demonstrated the ability to distinguish game birds from other birds, and this distinction had not previously been 'taught'.
all these demonstrates don't bring us to a consensus that animals can reason.
I restate the original, we still haven't achieved the degree of intellectual capacity to devise an experiment that can prove what you know to be true from your observations.
Ok, I've been thinking a bit about the brain and how it works.
Since the brain has essentially been a "black box" until recently, it has been common to compare it to our electronic computers. Now that I think about it, there is a fundamental reason why our brains are not computers. Brains are learning machines, not computers. If we were to create an AI, 0 of the components would be microprocessors. The brain is about connections. Each neuron connects to n other neurons. An artificial brain would consist of nano-machines that behave like neurons.
In short, AI isn't about software, it's about the hardware.
Since the brain has essentially been a "black box" until recently, it has been common to compare it to our electronic computers. Now that I think about it, there is a fundamental reason why our brains are not computers. Brains are learning machines, not computers. If we were to create an AI, 0 of the components would be microprocessors. The brain is about connections. Each neuron connects to n other neurons. An artificial brain would consist of nano-machines that behave like neurons.
In short, AI isn't about software, it's about the hardware.
Does this count as reasoning?
QUOTE
Fascinating video showing how monkeys have learned over time to ripen pine nuts, and have fashioned tools to open them when they are ready to be eaten, in this clip from BBC show Clever Monkeys
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 30 2009, 08:08 PM)
Does this count as reasoning?
THAT is freaking amazing. Thanks for posting
THAT is freaking amazing. Thanks for posting
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Oct 1 2009, 12:08 AM)
Does this count as reasoning?
I think it is a demonstration of reasoning. Others may call it 'evidence of design', as with the incubator bird of Australia. That, too, is incredibly fascinating. Possibly even a better demonstration of reason. We just don't really know if it is reason, or something we just don't understand.
If the incubator bird used reason to properly incubate it's eggs... I would say that is the most profound evidence of reason, well beyond learning to 'count'.
Seems to me funding for studying these instances ought to have more funding than... never mind.... don't want to go there
I think it is a demonstration of reasoning. Others may call it 'evidence of design', as with the incubator bird of Australia. That, too, is incredibly fascinating. Possibly even a better demonstration of reason. We just don't really know if it is reason, or something we just don't understand.
If the incubator bird used reason to properly incubate it's eggs... I would say that is the most profound evidence of reason, well beyond learning to 'count'.
Seems to me funding for studying these instances ought to have more funding than... never mind.... don't want to go there
It looks fairly faked honestly.... Not saying that it couldnt happen tho.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 30 2009, 08:54 PM)
It looks fairly faked honestly.... Not saying that it couldnt happen tho.
Really?
Really?
Is it logical to conclude that, if something cannot be observed, measured, or detected in the physical realm, then it cannot exist?
within the realm of science, it has no place, simply by definition of science.
science is our tool to understand that which we can detect or observe in our universe. Is existence limited to the tools we have devised (or discovered)?
It seems to me that if this is true, then the whole of existence is limited by that which we can grasp. Almost as if we arrived first and everything must fit into our constructs.
seems to me that if this is true, then if there is a god(s), we be it.
within the realm of science, it has no place, simply by definition of science.
science is our tool to understand that which we can detect or observe in our universe. Is existence limited to the tools we have devised (or discovered)?
It seems to me that if this is true, then the whole of existence is limited by that which we can grasp. Almost as if we arrived first and everything must fit into our constructs.
seems to me that if this is true, then if there is a god(s), we be it.
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 1 2009, 12:54 AM)
It looks fairly faked honestly.... Not saying that it couldnt happen tho.
the monkeys or the bird?
the monkeys or the bird?
QUOTE (debrajo+Sep 30 2009, 09:09 PM)
the monkeys or the bird?
magpies has a death-grip on the idiot ball. My advice is to ignore him; he will just waste your time.
magpies has a death-grip on the idiot ball. My advice is to ignore him; he will just waste your time.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 01:41 AM)
magpies has a death-grip on the idiot ball. My advice is to ignore him; he will just waste your time.
i am new to forums. i read his stuff.
time better spent observing the monkeys. not spoken as an insult, just an observation.
i am new to forums. i read his stuff.
time better spent observing the monkeys. not spoken as an insult, just an observation.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 01:41 AM)
magpies has a death-grip on the idiot ball. My advice is to ignore him; he will just waste your time.
omg, why does anyone respond to this stuff?????
how long does one continue on a forum before.....
why would anyone engage...
omg, why does anyone respond to this stuff?????
how long does one continue on a forum before.....
why would anyone engage...
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 1 2009, 02:00 AM)
omg, why does anyone respond to this stuff?????
how long does one continue on a forum before.....
why would anyone engage...
Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American Psychologist, author, inventor, advocate for social reform,[1][2] and poet.[3] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[4] He invented the operant conditioning chamber, innovated his own philosophy of science called Radical Behaviorism,[5] and founded his own school of experimental research psychology—the experimental analysis of behavior. His analysis of human behavior culminated in his work Verbal Behavior, which has recently seen enormous increase in interest experimentally and in applied settings.[6] He discovered and advanced the rate of response as a dependent variable in psychological research. He invented the cumulative recorder to measure rate of responding as part of his highly influential work on schedules of reinforcement.[7][8] In a recent survey, Skinner was listed as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.[9] He was a prolific author who published 21 books and 180 articles.[10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_skinner
But you liked the monkey video better?
how long does one continue on a forum before.....
why would anyone engage...
Burrhus Frederic Skinner (March 20, 1904 – August 18, 1990) was an American Psychologist, author, inventor, advocate for social reform,[1][2] and poet.[3] He was the Edgar Pierce Professor of Psychology at Harvard University from 1958 until his retirement in 1974.[4] He invented the operant conditioning chamber, innovated his own philosophy of science called Radical Behaviorism,[5] and founded his own school of experimental research psychology—the experimental analysis of behavior. His analysis of human behavior culminated in his work Verbal Behavior, which has recently seen enormous increase in interest experimentally and in applied settings.[6] He discovered and advanced the rate of response as a dependent variable in psychological research. He invented the cumulative recorder to measure rate of responding as part of his highly influential work on schedules of reinforcement.[7][8] In a recent survey, Skinner was listed as the most influential psychologist of the 20th century.[9] He was a prolific author who published 21 books and 180 articles.[10][11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bf_skinner
But you liked the monkey video better?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 02:12 AM)
But you liked the monkey video better?
yes
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 01:41 AM)
magpies has a death-grip on the idiot ball.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 12:16 AM)
THAT is freaking amazing. Thanks for posting
You're welcome!
You're welcome!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 30 2009, 11:49 PM)
Ok, I've been thinking a bit about the brain and how it works.
Since the brain has essentially been a "black box" until recently, it has been common to compare it to our electronic computers. Now that I think about it, there is a fundamental reason why our brains are not computers. Brains are learning machines, not computers. If we were to create an AI, 0 of the components would be microprocessors. The brain is about connections. Each neuron connects to n other neurons. An artificial brain would consist of nano-machines that behave like neurons.
In short, AI isn't about software, it's about the hardware.
let's first find a binary representation of a fourier analysis so we can watch the monkeys in 3d.
how come nobody will respond to my post? page 11
Since the brain has essentially been a "black box" until recently, it has been common to compare it to our electronic computers. Now that I think about it, there is a fundamental reason why our brains are not computers. Brains are learning machines, not computers. If we were to create an AI, 0 of the components would be microprocessors. The brain is about connections. Each neuron connects to n other neurons. An artificial brain would consist of nano-machines that behave like neurons.
In short, AI isn't about software, it's about the hardware.
let's first find a binary representation of a fourier analysis so we can watch the monkeys in 3d.
how come nobody will respond to my post? page 11
I agree debrajo. Exactly what I agree with and how idk...
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 1 2009, 11:18 AM)
I agree debrajo. Exactly what I agree with and how idk...
It's true what they say; "fucktarded minds think alike".
It's true what they say; "fucktarded minds think alike".
Btw I just figured out what the god partical is a few mins ago... So this is my failed attempt to take credit for it.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 1 2009, 11:07 AM)
how come nobody will respond to my post? page 11
What post?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 11:43 AM)
What post?
Is it logical to conclude that, if something cannot be observed, measured, or detected in the physical realm, then it cannot exist?
within the realm of science, it has no place, simply by definition of science.
science is our tool to understand that which we can detect or observe in our universe. Is existence limited to the tools we have devised (or discovered)?
It seems to me that if this is true, then the whole of existence is limited by that which we can grasp. Almost as if we arrived first and everything must fit into our constructs.
seems to me that if this is true, then if there is a god(s), we be it.
sorry, i am too new to be allowed to link
Is it logical to conclude that, if something cannot be observed, measured, or detected in the physical realm, then it cannot exist?
within the realm of science, it has no place, simply by definition of science.
science is our tool to understand that which we can detect or observe in our universe. Is existence limited to the tools we have devised (or discovered)?
It seems to me that if this is true, then the whole of existence is limited by that which we can grasp. Almost as if we arrived first and everything must fit into our constructs.
seems to me that if this is true, then if there is a god(s), we be it.
sorry, i am too new to be allowed to link
Well, possibly we are God(s) but just haven't developed the science to verify it yet. 
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 12:46 PM)
Well, possibly we are God(s) but just haven't developed the science to verify it yet.
is it logical to conclude that, if we cannot detect it and science cannot explain it, then it cannot exist?
The supernatural has no place in the study of science, simply by definition.
Does it logically follow that it cannot exist?
is it logical to conclude that, if we cannot detect it and science cannot explain it, then it cannot exist?
The supernatural has no place in the study of science, simply by definition.
Does it logically follow that it cannot exist?
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 1 2009, 01:03 PM)
is it logical to conclude that, if we cannot detect it and science cannot explain it, then it cannot exist?
The supernatural has no place in the study of science, simply by definition.
Does it logically follow that it cannot exist?
This brings up an interesting point. How do we distinguish between the undetectable things that we know to exist (neutrinos) and things that are simply hogwash (magic, et. al.)?
The supernatural has no place in the study of science, simply by definition.
Does it logically follow that it cannot exist?
This brings up an interesting point. How do we distinguish between the undetectable things that we know to exist (neutrinos) and things that are simply hogwash (magic, et. al.)?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 05:05 PM)
This brings up an interesting point. How do we distinguish between the undetectable things that we know to exist (neutrinos) and things that are simply hogwash (magic, et. al.)?
we cannot 'distinguish' between the two because the 'other', if it does exist, is undetectable. science is a tool to understand that which we can observe, that which is 'detectable'. The other does not exist outside of our tools. Does this mean that all that exists must lie within the very tools we have devised to gain knowledge of the physical?
Is the universe limited to the tools we have devised to understand the universe?
i know i said i don't care to get into philosophy, and I don't. But in the quest to understand, using physics, one must account for the possibility that there may be something that we cannot detect that could account for that which escapes our complete understanding. (forces for one)
In other words, we have to assume that not all is 'graspable' by our tools. our very tools may be limited in understanding all there is.
we cannot 'distinguish' between the two because the 'other', if it does exist, is undetectable. science is a tool to understand that which we can observe, that which is 'detectable'. The other does not exist outside of our tools. Does this mean that all that exists must lie within the very tools we have devised to gain knowledge of the physical?
Is the universe limited to the tools we have devised to understand the universe?
i know i said i don't care to get into philosophy, and I don't. But in the quest to understand, using physics, one must account for the possibility that there may be something that we cannot detect that could account for that which escapes our complete understanding. (forces for one)
In other words, we have to assume that not all is 'graspable' by our tools. our very tools may be limited in understanding all there is.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 1 2009, 05:31 PM)
we cannot 'distinguish' between the two because the 'other', if it does exist, is undetectable. science is a tool to understand that which we can observe, that which is 'detectable'. The other does not exist outside of our tools. Does this mean that all that exists must lie within the very tools we have devised to gain knowledge of the physical?
Is the universe limited to the tools we have devised to understand the universe?
i know i said i don't care to get into philosophy, and I don't. But in the quest to understand, using physics, one must account for the possibility that there may be something that we cannot detect that could account for that which escapes our complete understanding. (forces for one)
In other words, we have to assume that not all is 'graspable' by our tools. our very tools may be limited in understanding all there is.
Science is first a tool to detect things, and then to try and understand them.
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
Is the universe limited to the tools we have devised to understand the universe?
i know i said i don't care to get into philosophy, and I don't. But in the quest to understand, using physics, one must account for the possibility that there may be something that we cannot detect that could account for that which escapes our complete understanding. (forces for one)
In other words, we have to assume that not all is 'graspable' by our tools. our very tools may be limited in understanding all there is.
Science is first a tool to detect things, and then to try and understand them.
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 05:41 PM)
Science is first a tool to detect things, and then to try and understand them.
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
no, i guess it was just antipluto
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
no, i guess it was just antipluto
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 05:41 PM)
Science is first a tool to detect things, and then to try and understand them.
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
i'll try again.
is it logical to assume that if we cannot detect something, then it cannot exist? not that we have 'yet' to detect it, but that it is undetectable in the physical realm.
the point is not to debate the existence of something we cannot detect, or be philosophical, but if there is any possibility of forces or 'anything' outside of our capability to detect, would it be logical to assume non existence of the unknown? Particularly if the thing we are trying to understand could be influenced by an undetectable unknown.
Is your point being that before Pluto was detected that it didn't exist?
i'll try again.
is it logical to assume that if we cannot detect something, then it cannot exist? not that we have 'yet' to detect it, but that it is undetectable in the physical realm.
the point is not to debate the existence of something we cannot detect, or be philosophical, but if there is any possibility of forces or 'anything' outside of our capability to detect, would it be logical to assume non existence of the unknown? Particularly if the thing we are trying to understand could be influenced by an undetectable unknown.
Dude, like 
you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especialy because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere.
you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especialy because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 1 2009, 03:24 PM)
is it logical to assume that if we cannot detect something, then it cannot exist? not that we have 'yet' to detect it, but that it is undetectable in the physical realm.
I would say that there are undetectable things that exist. Neutrinos would be a borderline example of this.
We can't assume the non-existence of the unknown. But we can assume that we are completely ignorant of the unknown.
Case in point: If god exists, why do we know about him? According to every monotheistic religious tradition, god has personally revealed himself to humanity. Either you have to pick which religion is right based on an arbitrary choice, decide that all religions share the same god or you decide that all religions are wrong about the nature of god altogether.
In the last case, without religion, how do we know that god has contacted humanity all? If god hasn't contacted humanity, then why are we aware of his existence at all? At that point, how do we know we didn't make him up?
I would say that there are undetectable things that exist. Neutrinos would be a borderline example of this.
QUOTE
the point is not to debate the existence of something we cannot detect, or be philosophical, but if there is any possibility of forces or 'anything' outside of our capability to detect, would it be logical to assume non existence of the unknown? Particularly if the thing we are trying to understand could be influenced by an undetectable unknown.
We can't assume the non-existence of the unknown. But we can assume that we are completely ignorant of the unknown.
Case in point: If god exists, why do we know about him? According to every monotheistic religious tradition, god has personally revealed himself to humanity. Either you have to pick which religion is right based on an arbitrary choice, decide that all religions share the same god or you decide that all religions are wrong about the nature of god altogether.
In the last case, without religion, how do we know that god has contacted humanity all? If god hasn't contacted humanity, then why are we aware of his existence at all? At that point, how do we know we didn't make him up?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 1 2009, 07:59 PM)
I would say that there are undetectable things that exist. Neutrinos would be a borderline example of this.
We can't assume the non-existence of the unknown. But we can assume that we are completely ignorant of the unknown.
Case in point: If god exists, why do we know about him? According to every monotheistic religious tradition, god has personally revealed himself to humanity. Either you have to pick which religion is right based on an arbitrary choice, decide that all religions share the same god or you decide that all religions are wrong about the nature of god altogether.
In the last case, without religion, how do we know that god has contacted humanity all? If god hasn't contacted humanity, then why are we aware of his existence at all? At that point, how do we know we didn't make him up?
Wouldn't the higgs boson be a better example??? I predict it will be detected (based partly on emotion). If so, we get to understand that "undetectable field" out there and explain much.
either way, find it or not, when they fire it up, I have to assume it will open up a whole new set of questions with another decade or so of producing more physics with more substance and less philosophy. That is my hope anyway. I think we have gone too long without a MAJOR new understanding.
There has always been 'something undetectable' that we try to find to fill in the holes. This may be the one for our century. We have never been able to fully understand something until we find that 'undetectable particle' etc.. like when we believed that flies spontaneously generated from cowshit.
It may be that we continue finding the 'undetectable' and adding to our understanding until we 'understand all', but it may not.
I just think that to assume that all can be known by the inhabitants of a universe simply because the inhabitant can 'know so much relative to __________' is not logical. there simply does not exist the empirical data, much less experiment or observation to come to that conclusion. Just because we have gained does not imply we will continue gaining until we have all understanding. that is in the realm of philosophy.
we develop theories to explain the missing parts, as we should. We have always found the missing parts which leads to more missing parts, as would be expected.
I just don't see how it is not logical to include the possibility that one day the 'missing part' will remain a mystery simply because it cannot be detected within the realms of our physical understanding.
I had a major problem with the ''we came from a blast of energy" long before I had my "Jesus moment". I didn't have any difficulty with the holes in quantum mechanics because our approximations are so incredibly close, the theories explaining the holes are consistent with what we can observe and test and you can put the math to it. Everything we do in physics leads to more understanding that can be validated through experiment and math. The holes I saw in the 'big bang to evolution to the INCREDIBLE complexity of nature' are just too big. I just can't watch a pinhead sized egg go from egg to liquid goo to butterfly, watch birds that take the temperature of a nest and add sand accordingly, and place anything like certainty on the validity of the explanation. I suppose I just spent too much time in the woods and watching nature shows to buy into it without something more solid. I simply came to the conclusion that the theories are amazing, and based on science and developed with brilliant minds, but to assume it is the explanation without any ability to test it was ..... well, not really science.
either way, scientifically, we simply cannot provide anything nearing 'proof' as we cannot replicate it to test it.
We can't assume the non-existence of the unknown. But we can assume that we are completely ignorant of the unknown.
Case in point: If god exists, why do we know about him? According to every monotheistic religious tradition, god has personally revealed himself to humanity. Either you have to pick which religion is right based on an arbitrary choice, decide that all religions share the same god or you decide that all religions are wrong about the nature of god altogether.
In the last case, without religion, how do we know that god has contacted humanity all? If god hasn't contacted humanity, then why are we aware of his existence at all? At that point, how do we know we didn't make him up?
Wouldn't the higgs boson be a better example??? I predict it will be detected (based partly on emotion). If so, we get to understand that "undetectable field" out there and explain much.
either way, find it or not, when they fire it up, I have to assume it will open up a whole new set of questions with another decade or so of producing more physics with more substance and less philosophy. That is my hope anyway. I think we have gone too long without a MAJOR new understanding.
There has always been 'something undetectable' that we try to find to fill in the holes. This may be the one for our century. We have never been able to fully understand something until we find that 'undetectable particle' etc.. like when we believed that flies spontaneously generated from cowshit.
It may be that we continue finding the 'undetectable' and adding to our understanding until we 'understand all', but it may not.
I just think that to assume that all can be known by the inhabitants of a universe simply because the inhabitant can 'know so much relative to __________' is not logical. there simply does not exist the empirical data, much less experiment or observation to come to that conclusion. Just because we have gained does not imply we will continue gaining until we have all understanding. that is in the realm of philosophy.
we develop theories to explain the missing parts, as we should. We have always found the missing parts which leads to more missing parts, as would be expected.
I just don't see how it is not logical to include the possibility that one day the 'missing part' will remain a mystery simply because it cannot be detected within the realms of our physical understanding.
I had a major problem with the ''we came from a blast of energy" long before I had my "Jesus moment". I didn't have any difficulty with the holes in quantum mechanics because our approximations are so incredibly close, the theories explaining the holes are consistent with what we can observe and test and you can put the math to it. Everything we do in physics leads to more understanding that can be validated through experiment and math. The holes I saw in the 'big bang to evolution to the INCREDIBLE complexity of nature' are just too big. I just can't watch a pinhead sized egg go from egg to liquid goo to butterfly, watch birds that take the temperature of a nest and add sand accordingly, and place anything like certainty on the validity of the explanation. I suppose I just spent too much time in the woods and watching nature shows to buy into it without something more solid. I simply came to the conclusion that the theories are amazing, and based on science and developed with brilliant minds, but to assume it is the explanation without any ability to test it was ..... well, not really science.
either way, scientifically, we simply cannot provide anything nearing 'proof' as we cannot replicate it to test it.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 07:52 PM)
Dude, like you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especially because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere.
it won't lead to anywhere for you, but it already is for me.
the major driving force behind my motivation is to better communicate and adjust if needed what I already believe. Not to convince you or to particularly 'convince' anyone. After a long time away from any academia, I agreed to teach a class of high school kids. evolution, biology, origins... doesn't have to enter into it, but it seems it already has. I am not about to tell them that evolution is 'the explanation" or that it is incorrect. I would prefer not to discuss it because the class is chemistry
This started for me when a student gave me the book, "the mind of God" by Davies. I couldn't' get past the first few pages without screaming at his inclusion of ID in his 'quantum theory of everything'..... Rather than scream my objections at the kids and destroy their opportunity to at least finish the book and do their own analysis, I first came here to scream simply because i had to scream it at someone. I googled his book and the word forum and found almost nothing. I read the topic title here and assumed....
Since getting on here, I have been curious to understand, outside of any scriptural explanation, why atheists seem to invest so much emotion in the absence of god and the logic to come to the conclusion that there is not a god. (for lack of a better way to state it).
I also want to see the "logic" that christians use to include God in science - insist on fitting the "several thousand year earth" into the body of scientific evidence, laws and theories we have today. If I don't know what "logic" they use to do this, I dint' know how to refute it. I went to a seminar once from one group of 'creation scientists' who were teaching kids. When I confronted the lecturer about using incredibly sloppy "science" to prove scientifically to a bunch of kids how the 6000 year old earth fits into our understanding of science..... he told me that because the evolutionist have had so long to work on their theory that they have to do 'something' to catch up. I know this is not indicative of every christian who appreciates science or of scientists who are christians, but this group has a pretty loud voice.
I sincerely do want to understand the logical conclusion that the only thing that can exist is that which we can comprehend through the tools of science. seriously. I have no doubt that it is logical to omit God, but I really do want to understand, using logic, how nothing outside of our ability to understand can exist.
you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especially because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere. it won't lead to anywhere for you, but it already is for me.
the major driving force behind my motivation is to better communicate and adjust if needed what I already believe. Not to convince you or to particularly 'convince' anyone. After a long time away from any academia, I agreed to teach a class of high school kids. evolution, biology, origins... doesn't have to enter into it, but it seems it already has. I am not about to tell them that evolution is 'the explanation" or that it is incorrect. I would prefer not to discuss it because the class is chemistry
This started for me when a student gave me the book, "the mind of God" by Davies. I couldn't' get past the first few pages without screaming at his inclusion of ID in his 'quantum theory of everything'..... Rather than scream my objections at the kids and destroy their opportunity to at least finish the book and do their own analysis, I first came here to scream simply because i had to scream it at someone. I googled his book and the word forum and found almost nothing. I read the topic title here and assumed....
Since getting on here, I have been curious to understand, outside of any scriptural explanation, why atheists seem to invest so much emotion in the absence of god and the logic to come to the conclusion that there is not a god. (for lack of a better way to state it).
I also want to see the "logic" that christians use to include God in science - insist on fitting the "several thousand year earth" into the body of scientific evidence, laws and theories we have today. If I don't know what "logic" they use to do this, I dint' know how to refute it. I went to a seminar once from one group of 'creation scientists' who were teaching kids. When I confronted the lecturer about using incredibly sloppy "science" to prove scientifically to a bunch of kids how the 6000 year old earth fits into our understanding of science..... he told me that because the evolutionist have had so long to work on their theory that they have to do 'something' to catch up. I know this is not indicative of every christian who appreciates science or of scientists who are christians, but this group has a pretty loud voice.
I sincerely do want to understand the logical conclusion that the only thing that can exist is that which we can comprehend through the tools of science. seriously. I have no doubt that it is logical to omit God, but I really do want to understand, using logic, how nothing outside of our ability to understand can exist.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 1 2009, 07:52 PM)
Dude, like you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especially because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere.
actually you should get something out of it, indirectly. you seem to be passionate about the whole 'science/god' thing and, as such, probably have some care about the further propagation of "evolution is wrong because it isn't logical, blah blah... "
Well, i don't have a large sphere of influence, but, hopefully, what I gain from this forum will, at the very least, add to my understanding. Maybe I will go from "evolution is stupid" (never actually said that) to "gee, evolution is an incredibly sound theory developed over years of scientific thought and observation"........
It has already changed the way I would converse about and they manner in which I would convey my thoughts. I will not be in a position to teach evolution as that is completely outside my thing, but every little bit helps in the quest to reduce ignorance and illogical arguments. I won't be much assistance in reducing on the outside if I don't continue working on the inside.
you should be able to answer your own questions there. Especially because you should have a better understanding of your underlaying motivation. This free exchange of ideas I think will lead to nowhere. actually you should get something out of it, indirectly. you seem to be passionate about the whole 'science/god' thing and, as such, probably have some care about the further propagation of "evolution is wrong because it isn't logical, blah blah... "
Well, i don't have a large sphere of influence, but, hopefully, what I gain from this forum will, at the very least, add to my understanding. Maybe I will go from "evolution is stupid" (never actually said that) to "gee, evolution is an incredibly sound theory developed over years of scientific thought and observation"........
It has already changed the way I would converse about and they manner in which I would convey my thoughts. I will not be in a position to teach evolution as that is completely outside my thing, but every little bit helps in the quest to reduce ignorance and illogical arguments. I won't be much assistance in reducing on the outside if I don't continue working on the inside.
Be honest to yourself and you'll be honest to other peopele?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 2 2009, 03:37 AM)
Be honest to yourself and you'll be honest to other peopele?
nevermind
nevermind
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 2 2009, 03:52 AM)
nevermind
I posted a video of BF Skinner - the most influential psychologist of the 20th century - and how he taught pigeons. You only took a superficial interest. How do I know how committed you are?
Here is a better forum to start with if you're serious http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
http://richarddawkins.net/
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbe...ws-d/#clip16569
I posted a video of BF Skinner - the most influential psychologist of the 20th century - and how he taught pigeons. You only took a superficial interest. How do I know how committed you are?
Here is a better forum to start with if you're serious http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
http://richarddawkins.net/
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbe...ws-d/#clip16569
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 2 2009, 08:13 AM)
I posted a video of BF Skinner - the most influential psychologist of the 20th century - and how he taught pigeons. You only took a superficial interest. How do I know how committed you are?
Here is a better forum to start with if you're serious http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
http://richarddawkins.net/
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbe...ws-d/#clip16569
i have to acknowledge that i am not that committed at this point. simply because my time management already sucks, i have taken on enough stuff to make my life rather chaotic at this time and i tend to be a tad OCD.... and this is more of an 'aside' that i got off on. The answer to my curiosity is not urgent, although I do consider it important.
but i appreciate the feedback and for now i will at least post my question on the forum. Maybe I will receive more creative feedback than fucktard troll sock puppet.
I would probably better spend my time on the 'creation science' forums if i am going to continue "foruming" because that is really where my beef is. I get passionate about people using incredibly sloppy "science" and logic in ID "theory".
it would still be interesting to hear the response on this forum to the question posed on the logic of studying quantum mechanics starting with the premise that it is not possible for there to exist anything outside of our ability to detect it.
Here is a better forum to start with if you're serious http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
http://richarddawkins.net/
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbe...ws-d/#clip16569
i have to acknowledge that i am not that committed at this point. simply because my time management already sucks, i have taken on enough stuff to make my life rather chaotic at this time and i tend to be a tad OCD.... and this is more of an 'aside' that i got off on. The answer to my curiosity is not urgent, although I do consider it important.
but i appreciate the feedback and for now i will at least post my question on the forum. Maybe I will receive more creative feedback than fucktard troll sock puppet.
I would probably better spend my time on the 'creation science' forums if i am going to continue "foruming" because that is really where my beef is. I get passionate about people using incredibly sloppy "science" and logic in ID "theory".
it would still be interesting to hear the response on this forum to the question posed on the logic of studying quantum mechanics starting with the premise that it is not possible for there to exist anything outside of our ability to detect it.
QUOTE (debrajo+Oct 2 2009, 03:43 PM)
i have to acknowledge that i am not that committed at this point. simply because my time management already sucks, i have taken on enough stuff to make my life rather chaotic at this time and i tend to be a tad OCD.... and this is more of an 'aside' that i got off on. The answer to my curiosity is not urgent, although I do consider it important.
but i appreciate the feedback and for now i will at least post my question on the forum. Maybe I will receive more creative feedback than fucktard troll sock puppet.
I would probably better spend my time on the 'creation science' forums if i am going to continue "foruming" because that is really where my beef is. I get passionate about people using incredibly sloppy "science" and logic in ID "theory".
it would still be interesting to hear the response on this forum to the question posed on the logic of studying quantum mechanics starting with the premise that it is not possible for there to exist anything outside of our ability to detect it.
well, i tried,
i guess i have to assume that until i can observe a christian and atheist discuss science, then the possibility does not exist.
but i did come to some interesting conclusions in considering energy in the absence of matter, or of matter that "just was".
What "existed" pre-big bang is beyond the tools of science we have today. therefore, we are not here.
bye and thanks.
but i appreciate the feedback and for now i will at least post my question on the forum. Maybe I will receive more creative feedback than fucktard troll sock puppet.
I would probably better spend my time on the 'creation science' forums if i am going to continue "foruming" because that is really where my beef is. I get passionate about people using incredibly sloppy "science" and logic in ID "theory".
it would still be interesting to hear the response on this forum to the question posed on the logic of studying quantum mechanics starting with the premise that it is not possible for there to exist anything outside of our ability to detect it.
well, i tried,
i guess i have to assume that until i can observe a christian and atheist discuss science, then the possibility does not exist.
but i did come to some interesting conclusions in considering energy in the absence of matter, or of matter that "just was".
What "existed" pre-big bang is beyond the tools of science we have today. therefore, we are not here.
bye and thanks.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Sep 29 2009, 02:19 PM)
No.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
what if i am a satanic atheist? i dont believe in god, but only in the self. I therefore satisfy the criteria that you have left in my feedback.
Saying "I'm an atheist" after you've just said "there's plenty of room in science for God" makes you agnostic. You can call yourself an atheist. But you aren't if you believe there is room for god in science.
Secondarily, your capitalization of god (as a proper noun) indicates to me you believe it is a proper noun and to me that displays an uncertainty i.e... agnosticism. It isn't a proper noun (except to Xtians ... and yes I'll admit common usage is to capitalize it ... but that doesn't make it correct).
The word "god" though is not. Just as there are many varieties of fish there are many gods. You capitalize Halibut, Trout, Bass, Catfish, Yahweh, Buddha, Jehovah, Thor, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Sana Claus but not god.
Anyway ... my capitalization point is a small matter so anyone thinking about responding and making a big deal about it shouldn't bother.
99.999999999.... % atheist = agnostic.
what if i am a satanic atheist? i dont believe in god, but only in the self. I therefore satisfy the criteria that you have left in my feedback.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.