Do you feel persecuted by any present-day religions? - Page 3

Elind · 28th December 2005, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

Did it ever occur to any of you that a people who feel that they're on the defensive will rise and try to take power back?

Of course

Why do you think we amuse ourselves with this topic?

Huntster · 28th December 2005, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

...Why do you think we amuse ourselves with this topic?

In order to pat yourselves on your collective backs, and reassure each other.

Elind · 28th December 2005, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

In order to pat yourselves on your collective backs, and reassure each other.

Is that bad? Sounds like church to me

Huntster · 28th December 2005, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

Is that bad? Sounds like church to me

Good point:

Six of one, half-dozen of the other, with the addendum that birds of a feather flock together.

Elind · 29th December 2005, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster

Six of one, half-dozen of the other,

No. Too simple a leap. There are vast differences in the objectives and procedures of one "club" and another.

Quote:

with the addendum that birds of a feather flock together.

That is the human condition.

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

No. Too simple a leap. There are vast differences in the objectives and procedures of one "club" and another....

Sorry. "It's the human condition".

Just as there are religious people who violate church laws, there are scientists, wanna-be scientists, and folks who blather about the scientific method only because it is antithetical to faith who (in their humanity) violate the scientific method.

"Believing" that a skeptical viewpoint is superior is no different than believing in God.

They are both beliefs.

Elind · 29th December 2005, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

Just as there are religious people who violate church laws, there are scientists, wanna-be scientists, and folks who blather about the scientific method only because it is antithetical to faith who (in their humanity) violate the scientific method.

Of course there are people like that. Human condition again. You seem to be critical of scientific principles just because some people have poor principles. There's a word for that logic, which escapes me at the moment.

Quote:

"Believing" that a skeptical viewpoint is superior is no different than believing in God.

They are both beliefs.

One can be tested, another can't. I happen to think that's a very big distinction.

kuroyume0161 · 29th December 2005, 01:03 PM

Here! Here! Elind

Hunster, you are filling up with it here. You are on unrecognized turf and spewing BS.

The skeptical/scientific 'viewpoint' is superior exactly because it deals with evidence and repeatable testing thereof to provide understanding using objectivity and only axiomatic premises. Understanding of 'God' is completely subjective and through blind faith. There is a BIG friggin' difference (not that any types like you ever learn or listen when we repeat it - because it's true) between 'blind faith' (religion) and 'evidential faith' (science). Please scamper away now...

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

...You seem to be critical of scientific principles just because some people have poor principles......

I am not critical of scientific principles. I just see the inherent weakness with it, along with it's inherent strength, and I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a diety in and of itself.

And I am more amused than critical of people who try to use science as a weapon against faith, people of faith, the church itself, and all of society.

It brings renewed meaning to the scripture passage:

Quote:

...In their wisdom, they have become fools...

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by kuroyume0161

...There is a BIG friggin' difference (not that any types like you ever learn or listen when we repeat it - because it's true) between 'blind faith' (religion) and 'evidential faith' (science)...

Repeat? Repeatable?

Yeah, as a "scientist", you sure require that, don't you?

The question is: how many times must it be repeated to get through?

Well, let me try again:

Your measure of acceptance with regard to evidence may be higher than mine, or the next guys. If you have prejudiced your opinion, even no amount of evidence will be acceptable.

"Evidential Faith" is exactly how I accept much of my spiritual, or religious beliefs.

Let's see if it got through that time........................

Quote:

...Understanding of 'God' is completely subjective and through blind faith...

That is not true, Mr. Scientific Method. Try again.

Quote:

...Please scamper away now...

Not yet. When the nausea becomes overwhelming, I'll go launch and take a break.

Melendwyr · 29th December 2005, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I just see the inherent weakness with it,

The "inherent weakness" of the scientific method is that it can't support arbitrarily chosen assertions, which I'm sure must be quite inconvenient for you.

Quote:

I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a deity in and of itself.

I can't think of anyone here who supports "worshipping" science as a "deity".

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

The "inherent weakness" of the scientific method is that it can't support arbitrarily chosen assertions, which I'm sure must be quite inconvenient for you....

Actually, yes, that is inconvenient. It means one must go to work obtaining evidence.

But, of course, many prefer to simply sit back and "review", never going forth and obtaining anything. They simply pre-judge, opine, and call it science.

Rocky · 29th December 2005, 03:00 PM

There are an infinite number of "faith based" belief systems, we collectivly call them religion.

There is only one evidence based belief system, it is called science.

-R

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

There are an infinite number of "faith based" belief systems, we collectivly call them religion.

There is only one evidence based belief system, it is called science.

-R

I disagree with your definitions.

I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it.

That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement".

kuroyume0161 · 29th December 2005, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

Actually, yes, that is inconvenient. It means one must go to work obtaining evidence.

But, of course, many prefer to simply sit back and "review", never going forth and obtaining anything. They simply pre-judge, opine, and call it science.

I struggle hard not to enter a wild ad hom tirade.... errrr.

Yeah, we just lock ourselves in our ivory towers with the scientists and believe everything they say. That's why no scientific theory was ever turned over, supersceded, or improved. That's why Luminiferous Ether, Cold Fusion and bad cloning in S.K. are still considered hypotheses or valid experiments - because no one really ever tests this stuff. We just take it all ON FAITH!

That's what your little, closed mind would lead you to believe. But, sir, it is nothing of the sort. Not a single THEORY in science ever becomes such without peer review of the model/logic/maths/experiments/data, following from previous Theories, and having had its validating experiments successfully repeated under all of this.

This is why science works! There is no commision that determines 'the Truth'. Anybody (and that means - ANYONE) can do the work to validate a theory or its validating experiments. People do it all the time in biology, chemistry, and physics classes. There is no 'faith', except that which has been rigorously and objectively obtained.

Religion is about subjective evidence. That amounts to hearsay, anecdote, emotion, and group validation. These are not to be found in science.

Ryokan · 29th December 2005, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Do not believe just because it is a tradition maintained by oral repetition.
Do not believe just because it is an unbroken succession of practise.
Do not believe merely because it is hearsay.
Do not believe just because it is in the scriptures.
Do not believe just because it fits with one's point of view.
Do not believe just because it is correct on the ground of metaphysical theories.
Do not believe just because it appeals to one's consideration.
Do not believe just because it agrees with one's opinions and theories.
Do not believe just because the speaker appears believable.
Do not believe just because the speaker is our teacher.

Whenever you realize by yourselves that these are unwholesome, harmful or are condemned by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe them, they will lead to uselessness or suffering, you should abandon them.

Whenever you realize by yourselves that these are wholesome, unharmful or are admired by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe them, they will lead to usefulness or happiness, you should undertake them.

- Gautama Buddha

Not all religions are faith based.

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ryokan

Not all religions are faith based.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I would also like to point out that many like to condemn religion and spirituality in the same breath, and while doing so illustrate their ignorance of the subject.

Quote:

...The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows;
it is empty, yet has not lost its power.
The more it is used, the more it produces;
the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend.

It is better not to speak of things you do not understand....

-Tao Te Ching

kuroyume0161 · 29th December 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I disagree with your definitions.

I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it.

That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement".

'Reasoned judgement' and 'objectively evidenced' are two completely different animals. Maybe if you understood the terms involved, you wouldn't make these incorrect equivocations.

Your so-called 'evidence' is called 'non-evidence' because it isn't objective and verifiable. It is subjective (even if 'alot' of people agree with you) and most definitely unverifiable. If this were not the case, we wouldn't need to discuss your evidence's veracity.

And the moment that I read, "but it's verifiable to me", we're done the discussion. That gravitational force would cause an unaided object to fall until it encounters an obstruction (like the ground) is not just 'verifiable to me'. It has been repeatedly (as in quintillions and quintillions of times) shown to hold for everyone (that's what 'objective' means - held the same for each and every observer - M-W 1.b.(3) for a more concise definition - though I find their definitions to be biased.) This is used apart from 'empirical' which implies 'through observation alone'.

Wiki-Science

jjramsey · 29th December 2005, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Elind

Fair enough, as long as you share the same skepticism of non atheists. Hell why not just say "...reasonableness of humans"?

Because it doesn't scan as well.

Seriously, if I weren't skeptical of non-atheists, I wouldn't be here. It's just that I've found that the ideologically commited are the most prone to playing games with the facts, and that I've seen that dynamic played out by atheists as well as the religious.

Originally Posted by Elind

Your sig suggests that to be critical of, for example, biblical "truths" one needs to be an expert on the bible.

Not necessarily. Here's more from the speech transcript that I took the text from:

Quote:

One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. Let me give you two examples: Tim Leedon has produced an important book entitled The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read. So far so good, but he included in that an item that was first published in 1875 titled "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." This is nonsense. It's completely wrong. It's not only more than a hundred years out of date, it has nothing to do with the facts. Unfortunate. It should never have gone in. The second example is related to the oldest freethought magazine in America, The Truthseeker, which has recently been publishing articles on astro-theology that are so out of touch with scholarship that my students, when they picked this up and started to read it, threw it aside and said: "this magazine has nothing to say to us."

The everyday atheist layman need not be an expert, but if skeptical/atheist publications are going to discuss the history of religions or the historical aspects of the claims in the Bible, they should have experts on staff. Unfortunately, as it stands, much of what comes out of freethinker circles is not merely a somewhat oversimplified version of the work of Biblical scholars work, which is what one should expect if they are publishing for a lay audience, but total and utter garbage, much of it recycled from the 19th century. Shermer is a "big name" skeptic, and he can't even get his facts close to straight.

Rocky · 29th December 2005, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I disagree with your definitions.

I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it.

That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement".

OK, how about:

There is only one repeatable, empirical evidence based belief system, that always works for everyone - everywhere; it is called science.

All the rest we collectively call religion.

-R

Rocky · 29th December 2005, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. .....
That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement".

I lost my religion when I started to examine my beliefs and the evidence for them. Since then I've taken the other approach: Find the evidence first the see what it will support.

Just for fun, what "evidence" (exactly) did you find and what beliefs (exactly) do they support?

And in what order?

-R

Ducky · 29th December 2005, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

I lost my religion when I started to examine my beliefs and the evidence for them. Since then I've taken the other approach: Find the evidence first the see what it will support.

Just for fun, what "evidence" (exactly) did you find and what beliefs (exactly) do they support?

And in what order?

-R

Here's mine:

Quote:

...snip....
I don’t believe in santa claus.
I don’t belive in spite.
I have no use for beauty dolls.
Especially on this night.
I don’t believe in miracles.
I don’t belive in lies.
I don’t belive in hologram
For I am the frizzle fry.
...snip...
I don’t believe in charity.
I don’t believe in sin.
And if you don’t believe in me,
We’ll play this tune over again.
I don’t believe in pinochle
And I don’t beleive I’ll try.
I do believe in captain crunch
For I am the frizzle fry.
Yes I am the frizzle fry.

(edited to avoid copyright probs. Attributed to Primus' "Frizzle Fry")

Rocky · 29th December 2005, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by fowlsound

For I am the frizzle fry.
Yes I am the frizzle fry.

..... I thought you were Fowlsound.... Sorry, my bad.

-R

Ducky · 29th December 2005, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

..... I thought you were Fowlsound.... Sorry, my bad.

-R

The frizzle fry takes many forms. REPENT AND BELIEVE! THE FRIZZLE FRY HAS RISEN!

Huntster · 29th December 2005, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

...Find the evidence first the see what it will support....

By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot?

Is that how we discover and learn?

Elind · 29th December 2005, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

I am not critical of scientific principles. I just see the inherent weakness with it, along with it's inherent strength, and I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a diety in and of itself.

Come on now. You are rambling. No one has talked of worship or deities, but you, and no one else (not many here anyway) does.

Quote:

And I am more amused than critical of people who try to use science as a weapon against faith, people of faith, the church itself, and all of society.

It brings renewed meaning to the scripture passage: ...In their wisdom, they have become fools...

Meaning and amusement to you perhaps. To me those without wisdom (aka knowledge of reality) have always been fools (to be taken only in the broad spirit of your quote of course)

Rocky · 29th December 2005, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot?

No, I never miss evidence I would have skipped since it didn't fit my preconceived ideas. I know through experience that I can be fooled by preconceived notions. I know that everyone else can as well.

Quote:

Is that how we discover and learn?

If I understand your question- it's how I discover and learn.

Quote:

I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs.

Now, what "evidence" did you find and what beliefs do they support?

Also, do you agree with my revised definitions or can you suggest a change?

-R

kuroyume0161 · 29th December 2005, 11:45 PM

I think that there should be a clear distinction between 'phenomenal observance' and 'evidence' - even though they have overlap. Science usually involves making an observation, postulating a hypothesis, and testing that with experiments. Experiments are part of the 'evidence'. Part of the evidence is also conscilience with previous theories. When the evidence supports a particular hypothesis more than any other (i.e.: no knowledge has 100% certainty), we accept the hypothesis as a theory. There are also differences between theory and law. Laws are general mathematical principles related to observations - usually these are the mathematical 'model' which is used to represent and provide predictability for the observed phenomena.

kuroyume0161 · 30th December 2005, 12:44 AM

UrsulaV, I agree for the most part. I don't feel as much persecuted as denied and side-lined. It is not as bad as putting me on a stake and applying some fire, but it still shows the vindictive nature of the religious persecution (loosely) to apply whatever authority it has to provide public pressure against innovation.

Admittedly, in a nation governed by a structured democratic process, it is not easy for these religious initiatives to take hold and expand, but they are still existent and still invoke their stigma upon our culture to stagnate advancements away from these long-forgone notions and morals.

Elind · 30th December 2005, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Rocky

:
...Find the evidence first the see what it will support....

Originally Posted by Huntster

By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot?

Is that how we discover and learn?

You are making less and less sense. "Miss a lot", by trying to understand the universe?

"Is that how we discover and learn"?

Please tell us how you discover and learn.

Are you working up to telling us we should read the bible? What?

29th December 2005, 02:03 PM	#91
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	Originally Posted by Huntster I just see the inherent weakness with it, The "inherent weakness" of the scientific method is that it can't support arbitrarily chosen assertions, which I'm sure must be quite inconvenient for you. Quote: I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a deity in and of itself. I can't think of anyone here who supports "worshipping" science as a "deity".
Melendwyr Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 2,064	__________________ Arguing with the irrational is like giving medicine to a dead man or preaching to the damned. "Dance with us, GIR! Dance with us into oblivion!" "Oddly, stating that one has no creed assures that one has no creed." -- Upchurch "I am the only one here using reason." -- Interesting Ian "You cannot respond to the arguments of TIMECUBE!" -- TimeCube guy

29th December 2005, 03:00 PM	#93
Rocky The Flying Squirrel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 296	There are an infinite number of "faith based" belief systems, we collectivly call them religion. There is only one evidence based belief system, it is called science. -R
	__________________ To Make it work - you must Believe. That's called “Make-Believe” "ROCKY! Do you have to beat off the women with a stick driving that thing!!!! WHoa baby!!! What do you do with it??? Is it for speed trials or racing or what. Looks FAST! Driving that, as a woman I can assure you any man that drives a cool race car is good in bed. It's just a fact of life." -Kittynh

29th December 2005, 03:56 PM	#99
jjramsey Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 1,436	Originally Posted by Elind Fair enough, as long as you share the same skepticism of non atheists. Hell why not just say "...reasonableness of humans"? Because it doesn't scan as well. Seriously, if I weren't skeptical of non-atheists, I wouldn't be here. It's just that I've found that the ideologically commited are the most prone to playing games with the facts, and that I've seen that dynamic played out by atheists as well as the religious. Originally Posted by Elind Your sig suggests that to be critical of, for example, biblical "truths" one needs to be an expert on the bible. Not necessarily. Here's more from the speech transcript that I took the text from: Quote: One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. Let me give you two examples: Tim Leedon has produced an important book entitled The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read. So far so good, but he included in that an item that was first published in 1875 titled "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors." This is nonsense. It's completely wrong. It's not only more than a hundred years out of date, it has nothing to do with the facts. Unfortunate. It should never have gone in. The second example is related to the oldest freethought magazine in America, The Truthseeker, which has recently been publishing articles on astro-theology that are so out of touch with scholarship that my students, when they picked this up and started to read it, threw it aside and said: "this magazine has nothing to say to us." The everyday atheist layman need not be an expert, but if skeptical/atheist publications are going to discuss the history of religions or the historical aspects of the claims in the Bible, they should have experts on staff. Unfortunately, as it stands, much of what comes out of freethinker circles is not merely a somewhat oversimplified version of the work of Biblical scholars work, which is what one should expect if they are publishing for a lay audience, but total and utter garbage, much of it recycled from the 19th century. Shermer is a "big name" skeptic, and he can't even get his facts close to straight.
	__________________ "One criticism I have with freethought publications in the field of religion is that so often they are wrong; they are inaccurate. . . . The point I am trying to make is that to be authentic freethinkers, to be authentic truth seekers, we must draw on the best information available to substantiate our claims." -- Gerald LaRue, Freethinkers United! Conference 1997, Orlando, Florida

29th December 2005, 04:43 PM	#100
Rocky The Flying Squirrel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 296	Originally Posted by Huntster I disagree with your definitions. I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it. That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement". OK, how about: There is only one repeatable, empirical evidence based belief system, that always works for everyone - everywhere; it is called science. All the rest we collectively call religion. -R
	__________________ To Make it work - you must Believe. That's called “Make-Believe” "ROCKY! Do you have to beat off the women with a stick driving that thing!!!! WHoa baby!!! What do you do with it??? Is it for speed trials or racing or what. Looks FAST! Driving that, as a woman I can assure you any man that drives a cool race car is good in bed. It's just a fact of life." -Kittynh

29th December 2005, 05:54 PM	#101
Rocky The Flying Squirrel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 296	Originally Posted by Huntster I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. ..... That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement". I lost my religion when I started to examine my beliefs and the evidence for them. Since then I've taken the other approach: Find the evidence first the see what it will support. Just for fun, what "evidence" (exactly) did you find and what beliefs (exactly) do they support? And in what order? -R
	__________________ To Make it work - you must Believe. That's called “Make-Believe” "ROCKY! Do you have to beat off the women with a stick driving that thing!!!! WHoa baby!!! What do you do with it??? Is it for speed trials or racing or what. Looks FAST! Driving that, as a woman I can assure you any man that drives a cool race car is good in bed. It's just a fact of life." -Kittynh

28th December 2005, 05:28 PM	#81
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Huntster Did it ever occur to any of you that a people who feel that they're on the defensive will rise and try to take power back? Of course Why do you think we amuse ourselves with this topic?

28th December 2005, 05:36 PM	#82
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Elind ...Why do you think we amuse ourselves with this topic? In order to pat yourselves on your collective backs, and reassure each other.

28th December 2005, 05:39 PM	#83
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Huntster In order to pat yourselves on your collective backs, and reassure each other. Is that bad? Sounds like church to me

28th December 2005, 05:41 PM	#84
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Elind Is that bad? Sounds like church to me Good point: Six of one, half-dozen of the other, with the addendum that birds of a feather flock together.

29th December 2005, 06:05 AM	#85
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Huntster Six of one, half-dozen of the other, No. Too simple a leap. There are vast differences in the objectives and procedures of one "club" and another. Quote: with the addendum that birds of a feather flock together. That is the human condition.

29th December 2005, 12:27 PM	#86
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Elind No. Too simple a leap. There are vast differences in the objectives and procedures of one "club" and another.... Sorry. "It's the human condition". Just as there are religious people who violate church laws, there are scientists, wanna-be scientists, and folks who blather about the scientific method only because it is antithetical to faith who (in their humanity) violate the scientific method. "Believing" that a skeptical viewpoint is superior is no different than believing in God. They are both beliefs.

29th December 2005, 12:54 PM	#87
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Huntster Just as there are religious people who violate church laws, there are scientists, wanna-be scientists, and folks who blather about the scientific method only because it is antithetical to faith who (in their humanity) violate the scientific method. Of course there are people like that. Human condition again. You seem to be critical of scientific principles just because some people have poor principles. There's a word for that logic, which escapes me at the moment. Quote: "Believing" that a skeptical viewpoint is superior is no different than believing in God. They are both beliefs. One can be tested, another can't. I happen to think that's a very big distinction.

29th December 2005, 01:03 PM	#88
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Here! Here! Elind Hunster, you are filling up with it here. You are on unrecognized turf and spewing BS. The skeptical/scientific 'viewpoint' is superior exactly because it deals with evidence and repeatable testing thereof to provide understanding using objectivity and only axiomatic premises. Understanding of 'God' is completely subjective and through blind faith. There is a BIG friggin' difference (not that any types like you ever learn or listen when we repeat it - because it's true) between 'blind faith' (religion) and 'evidential faith' (science). Please scamper away now...

29th December 2005, 01:36 PM	#89
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Elind ...You seem to be critical of scientific principles just because some people have poor principles...... I am not critical of scientific principles. I just see the inherent weakness with it, along with it's inherent strength, and I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a diety in and of itself. And I am more amused than critical of people who try to use science as a weapon against faith, people of faith, the church itself, and all of society. It brings renewed meaning to the scripture passage: Quote: ...In their wisdom, they have become fools...

29th December 2005, 01:46 PM	#90
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by kuroyume0161 ...There is a BIG friggin' difference (not that any types like you ever learn or listen when we repeat it - because it's true) between 'blind faith' (religion) and 'evidential faith' (science)... Repeat? Repeatable? Yeah, as a "scientist", you sure require that, don't you? The question is: how many times must it be repeated to get through? Well, let me try again: Your measure of acceptance with regard to evidence may be higher than mine, or the next guys. If you have prejudiced your opinion, even no amount of evidence will be acceptable. "Evidential Faith" is exactly how I accept much of my spiritual, or religious beliefs. Let's see if it got through that time........................ Quote: ...Understanding of 'God' is completely subjective and through blind faith... That is not true, Mr. Scientific Method. Try again. Quote: ...Please scamper away now... Not yet. When the nausea becomes overwhelming, I'll go launch and take a break.

29th December 2005, 02:36 PM	#92
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Melendwyr The "inherent weakness" of the scientific method is that it can't support arbitrarily chosen assertions, which I'm sure must be quite inconvenient for you.... Actually, yes, that is inconvenient. It means one must go to work obtaining evidence. But, of course, many prefer to simply sit back and "review", never going forth and obtaining anything. They simply pre-judge, opine, and call it science.

29th December 2005, 03:09 PM	#94
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Rocky There are an infinite number of "faith based" belief systems, we collectivly call them religion. There is only one evidence based belief system, it is called science. -R I disagree with your definitions. I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it. That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement".

29th December 2005, 03:10 PM	#95
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by Huntster Actually, yes, that is inconvenient. It means one must go to work obtaining evidence. But, of course, many prefer to simply sit back and "review", never going forth and obtaining anything. They simply pre-judge, opine, and call it science. I struggle hard not to enter a wild ad hom tirade.... errrr. Yeah, we just lock ourselves in our ivory towers with the scientists and believe everything they say. That's why no scientific theory was ever turned over, supersceded, or improved. That's why Luminiferous Ether, Cold Fusion and bad cloning in S.K. are still considered hypotheses or valid experiments - because no one really ever tests this stuff. We just take it all ON FAITH! That's what your little, closed mind would lead you to believe. But, sir, it is nothing of the sort. Not a single THEORY in science ever becomes such without peer review of the model/logic/maths/experiments/data, following from previous Theories, and having had its validating experiments successfully repeated under all of this. This is why science works! There is no commision that determines 'the Truth'. Anybody (and that means - ANYONE) can do the work to validate a theory or its validating experiments. People do it all the time in biology, chemistry, and physics classes. There is no 'faith', except that which has been rigorously and objectively obtained. Religion is about subjective evidence. That amounts to hearsay, anecdote, emotion, and group validation. These are not to be found in science.

29th December 2005, 03:20 PM	#96
Ryokan Insert something funny here Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Norway Posts: 8,198	Quote: Do not believe just because it is a tradition maintained by oral repetition. Do not believe just because it is an unbroken succession of practise. Do not believe merely because it is hearsay. Do not believe just because it is in the scriptures. Do not believe just because it fits with one's point of view. Do not believe just because it is correct on the ground of metaphysical theories. Do not believe just because it appeals to one's consideration. Do not believe just because it agrees with one's opinions and theories. Do not believe just because the speaker appears believable. Do not believe just because the speaker is our teacher. Whenever you realize by yourselves that these are unwholesome, harmful or are condemned by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe them, they will lead to uselessness or suffering, you should abandon them. Whenever you realize by yourselves that these are wholesome, unharmful or are admired by wise people, and whoever fully undertake or observe them, they will lead to usefulness or happiness, you should undertake them. - Gautama Buddha Not all religions are faith based.

29th December 2005, 03:35 PM	#97
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Ryokan Not all religions are faith based. I agree wholeheartedly. I would also like to point out that many like to condemn religion and spirituality in the same breath, and while doing so illustrate their ignorance of the subject. Quote: ...The space between Heaven and Earth is like a bellows; it is empty, yet has not lost its power. The more it is used, the more it produces; the more you talk of it, the less you comprehend. It is better not to speak of things you do not understand.... -Tao Te Ching

29th December 2005, 03:39 PM	#98
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	Originally Posted by Huntster I disagree with your definitions. I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. That evidence is roundly condemned, compromised, and called "non-evidence" by many (especially on this forum, and by self-professed skeptics), but I have accepted that evidence (as weak as it might be) as such, and have gone about my merry way with it. That makes my approach toward religion "reasoned judgement". 'Reasoned judgement' and 'objectively evidenced' are two completely different animals. Maybe if you understood the terms involved, you wouldn't make these incorrect equivocations. Your so-called 'evidence' is called 'non-evidence' because it isn't objective and verifiable. It is subjective (even if 'alot' of people agree with you) and most definitely unverifiable. If this were not the case, we wouldn't need to discuss your evidence's veracity. And the moment that I read, "but it's verifiable to me", we're done the discussion. That gravitational force would cause an unaided object to fall until it encounters an obstruction (like the ground) is not just 'verifiable to me'. It has been repeatedly (as in quintillions and quintillions of times) shown to hold for everyone (that's what 'objective' means - held the same for each and every observer - M-W 1.b.(3) for a more concise definition - though I find their definitions to be biased.) This is used apart from 'empirical' which implies 'through observation alone'. Wiki-Science

29th December 2005, 05:56 PM	#102
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by Rocky I lost my religion when I started to examine my beliefs and the evidence for them. Since then I've taken the other approach: Find the evidence first the see what it will support. Just for fun, what "evidence" (exactly) did you find and what beliefs (exactly) do they support? And in what order? -R Here's mine: Quote: ...snip.... I don’t believe in santa claus. I don’t belive in spite. I have no use for beauty dolls. Especially on this night. I don’t believe in miracles. I don’t belive in lies. I don’t belive in hologram For I am the frizzle fry. ...snip... I don’t believe in charity. I don’t believe in sin. And if you don’t believe in me, We’ll play this tune over again. I don’t believe in pinochle And I don’t beleive I’ll try. I do believe in captain crunch For I am the frizzle fry. Yes I am the frizzle fry. (edited to avoid copyright probs. Attributed to Primus' "Frizzle Fry")
	Last edited by Ducky; 29th December 2005 at 06:00 PM.

29th December 2005, 06:30 PM	#103
Rocky The Flying Squirrel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 296	I thought.... Originally Posted by fowlsound For I am the frizzle fry. Yes I am the frizzle fry. ..... I thought you were Fowlsound.... Sorry, my bad. -R
	__________________ To Make it work - you must Believe. That's called “Make-Believe” "ROCKY! Do you have to beat off the women with a stick driving that thing!!!! WHoa baby!!! What do you do with it??? Is it for speed trials or racing or what. Looks FAST! Driving that, as a woman I can assure you any man that drives a cool race car is good in bed. It's just a fact of life." -Kittynh

29th December 2005, 06:31 PM	#104
Ducky Titanium Puprhero Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Mayor of your front lawn. Posts: 12,296	Originally Posted by Rocky ..... I thought you were Fowlsound.... Sorry, my bad. -R The frizzle fry takes many forms. REPENT AND BELIEVE! THE FRIZZLE FRY HAS RISEN!

29th December 2005, 08:33 PM	#105
Huntster Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Alaska Posts: 6,798	Originally Posted by Rocky ...Find the evidence first the see what it will support.... By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot? Is that how we discover and learn?

29th December 2005, 09:25 PM	#106
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Huntster I am not critical of scientific principles. I just see the inherent weakness with it, along with it's inherent strength, and I'm reluctant to attribute more to it than is deserved, or worship it as a diety in and of itself. Come on now. You are rambling. No one has talked of worship or deities, but you, and no one else (not many here anyway) does. Quote: And I am more amused than critical of people who try to use science as a weapon against faith, people of faith, the church itself, and all of society. It brings renewed meaning to the scripture passage: ...In their wisdom, they have become fools... Meaning and amusement to you perhaps. To me those without wisdom (aka knowledge of reality) have always been fools (to be taken only in the broad spirit of your quote of course)

29th December 2005, 11:20 PM	#107
Rocky The Flying Squirrel Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: So. Cal. Posts: 296	Originally Posted by Huntster By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot? No, I never miss evidence I would have skipped since it didn't fit my preconceived ideas. I know through experience that I can be fooled by preconceived notions. I know that everyone else can as well. Quote: Is that how we discover and learn? If I understand your question- it's how I discover and learn. Quote: I sought and found evidence to support my religious beliefs. Now, what "evidence" did you find and what beliefs do they support? Also, do you agree with my revised definitions or can you suggest a change? -R
	__________________ To Make it work - you must Believe. That's called “Make-Believe” "ROCKY! Do you have to beat off the women with a stick driving that thing!!!! WHoa baby!!! What do you do with it??? Is it for speed trials or racing or what. Looks FAST! Driving that, as a woman I can assure you any man that drives a cool race car is good in bed. It's just a fact of life." -Kittynh

29th December 2005, 11:45 PM	#108
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	I think that there should be a clear distinction between 'phenomenal observance' and 'evidence' - even though they have overlap. Science usually involves making an observation, postulating a hypothesis, and testing that with experiments. Experiments are part of the 'evidence'. Part of the evidence is also conscilience with previous theories. When the evidence supports a particular hypothesis more than any other (i.e.: no knowledge has 100% certainty), we accept the hypothesis as a theory. There are also differences between theory and law. Laws are general mathematical principles related to observations - usually these are the mathematical 'model' which is used to represent and provide predictability for the observed phenomena.

30th December 2005, 12:44 AM	#109
kuroyume0161 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Loveland, CO, USA Posts: 1,628	UrsulaV, I agree for the most part. I don't feel as much persecuted as denied and side-lined. It is not as bad as putting me on a stake and applying some fire, but it still shows the vindictive nature of the religious persecution (loosely) to apply whatever authority it has to provide public pressure against innovation. Admittedly, in a nation governed by a structured democratic process, it is not easy for these religious initiatives to take hold and expand, but they are still existent and still invoke their stigma upon our culture to stagnate advancements away from these long-forgone notions and morals.

30th December 2005, 06:46 PM	#110
Elind Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Florida Posts: 6,622	Originally Posted by Rocky : ...Find the evidence first the see what it will support.... Originally Posted by Huntster By going forth with such an ideology, won't you miss a lot? Is that how we discover and learn? You are making less and less sense. "Miss a lot", by trying to understand the universe? "Is that how we discover and learn"? Please tell us how you discover and learn. Are you working up to telling us we should read the bible? What?