Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Remember!!

EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 9:25:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As least scientific discoveries usually have some evidence backing them up, whereas religion has none!
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2015 11:14:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

Wise words, indeed. Let's look at them closely to see what is actually being said here. Take this sentence for example:

"the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works"

This has been made all to evident on these forums with believers who constantly argue about evolution, cosmology and biology without knowing anything about the subject matter, their one and only reason is that they believe these subjects somehow jeopardize their religious beliefs. They refuse to learn anything about it but continue to quack notwithstanding.

Here's another:

"This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....."

Yes, notice that it says "newspaper articles" and not papers in peer reviewed journals. Scientists, like anyone else, cannot stop what is being misrepresented in the press, hence any complaints about it should be directed at the media, not the scientists who publish their work.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

Good question. I'm curious as to who he thinks he is addressing --- it seems to be some unnamed atheists "who ride the back of science like it's the final truth". That's not me. In fact, I don't think it's anyone on this forum. Just another theist attacking a strawman. Lol.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.

Bull double and you know it, there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.
Don't need the lecture about what science is so don't hurdle the point I was making or the writer himself, simple stuff.
And no I'm not indoctrinated, but I know how you guys think, and that's part of the problem.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:09:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 11:14:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

Wise words, indeed. Let's look at them closely to see what is actually being said here. Take this sentence for example:

"the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works"

This has been made all to evident on these forums with believers who constantly argue about evolution, cosmology and biology without knowing anything about the subject matter, their one and only reason is that they believe these subjects somehow jeopardize their religious beliefs. They refuse to learn anything about it but continue to quack notwithstanding.

Here's another:

"This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....."

Yes, notice that it says "newspaper articles" and not papers in peer reviewed journals. Scientists, like anyone else, cannot stop what is being misrepresented in the press, hence any complaints about it should be directed at the media, not the scientists who publish their work.

Somehow you always miss the point, I'm beginning to wonder about that mind inside your head, read the underlined and let is soak in this time. But then again it's easy to see why when your entire mind is dedicated to debunking anything said, that's why you are bias to the extreme.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

I don't really abandon them, I have very limited time having four kids, family and work. But I do get back most of the time but it may take a few days my apologies.
I admit I've created a couple threads lately that were more idealist than argument but I like to try new things here and there, this place gets boring with so much stagnation.

Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking. Anyone with half a brain can do that but it wastes peoples time. Trust me I've been in this game awhile I can read people in a single paragraph so I know who is a waste but I still will respond most of the time anyways.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:15:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

Good question. I'm curious as to who he thinks he is addressing --- it seems to be some unnamed atheists "who ride the back of science like it's the final truth". That's not me. In fact, I don't think it's anyone on this forum. Just another theist attacking a strawman. Lol.

The funny thing is that it's not a stawman lol! That's exactly what is happening, you guys think science is the final outcome and if you can't see that in this forum you need to wake up pal.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:37:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:15:41 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

Good question. I'm curious as to who he thinks he is addressing --- it seems to be some unnamed atheists "who ride the back of science like it's the final truth". That's not me. In fact, I don't think it's anyone on this forum. Just another theist attacking a strawman. Lol.

The funny thing is that it's not a stawman lol! That's exactly what is happening, you guys think science is the final outcome and if you can't see that in this forum you need to wake up pal.

Oh, I'm wide awake. We don't think science is the "final outcome", whatever that means. Science is a tool, a very useful tool, for understanding our universe. Our understanding will change over time. We not only appreciate this fact, we would be disappointed if there wasn't a revolution or two in store for us. (Those revolutions aren't going to include finding some evidence for gods).

So, yes, it's a strawman. Unless you know our own thoughts better than we do? Lol.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:42:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:09:04 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 11:14:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

Wise words, indeed. Let's look at them closely to see what is actually being said here. Take this sentence for example:

"the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works"

This has been made all to evident on these forums with believers who constantly argue about evolution, cosmology and biology without knowing anything about the subject matter, their one and only reason is that they believe these subjects somehow jeopardize their religious beliefs. They refuse to learn anything about it but continue to quack notwithstanding.

Here's another:

"This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....."

Yes, notice that it says "newspaper articles" and not papers in peer reviewed journals. Scientists, like anyone else, cannot stop what is being misrepresented in the press, hence any complaints about it should be directed at the media, not the scientists who publish their work.

Somehow you always miss the point, I'm beginning to wonder about that mind inside your head, read the underlined and let is soak in this time.

LOL. I missed the point? Dude, you are missing the point of what you quoted, it is you who needs to read it over and let it soak in...

"This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well"

But then again it's easy to see why when your entire mind is dedicated to debunking anything said, that's why you are bias to the extreme.

LOL. When believers like yourself make erroneous and disingenuous assertions about science related subjects because they are afraid it might jeopardize their absurd and childish beliefs in the boogeyman, it needs to be exposed for the nonsense that it is.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:45:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

I agree, science reporting is absolutely horrid these days. I even take it a step further.

Take this line from an article.

Researchers have identified two key proteins that act as genetic 'architects', creating the blueprint needed by embryos during the earliest stages of their development.

It is worded like proteins have free will and are "creating" when it is clearly nothing of the sort. Part of the issue is one of language. We humans often use human attributes to describe things which are not human at all. When talking to software developers on a program a conversation can go like this, "Does it know to do _______ when ______?"

It doesn't "know" anything. Technically the question should worded whether the program was designed to identify certain input conditions and produce the right output.

People's eyes get glazed over when talking about technical things and even more so today, complex scientific findings often require complex background understandings so in reporting to the public it gets put in terms that humans can relate to, which in turn introduces inaccuracies via implications from the words used.

From the same article I posted:

Previous work by the research team from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, Australia, showed that the protein MOZ could relay external 'messages' to the developing embryo, revealing a mechanism for how the environment could affect development in very early pregnancy.

Proteins don't relay messages. They have physical and chemical interactions which have impact upon outcomes.

But with all that said, if I imply from your writing, it is not fair to position science as requiring the same or same level of "faith" as religion. Science is a method, not a belief. It is the most accurate process of uncovering truths that mankind has uncovered. Is it fallible, yes. Can it address all areas we humans are interested in, no.

Though, in the long run it can address many more things than what one or two generation of humans can imagine. It also has mechanisms in the process to be self correcting as new information is found.

New information in terms of religion is called "heresy"
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:24:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.
Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking.

You realize that you can be accused of exactly the same thing, right?
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 10:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

I don't really abandon them, I have very limited time having four kids, family and work. But I do get back most of the time but it may take a few days my apologies.
I admit I've created a couple threads lately that were more idealist than argument but I like to try new things here and there, this place gets boring with so much stagnation.

Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking. Anyone with half a brain can do that but it wastes peoples time. Trust me I've been in this game awhile I can read people in a single paragraph so I know who is a waste but I still will respond most of the time anyways.

The wisdom of his years.
The same things repeated over and over are the unchanging divine tripe written by bronze age goatherds.
Indoctrination in those never changing words of ignorance is not wisdom.
If you would be so kind as to show me where the kangaroo is mentioned in your ancient writings I may have more interest.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:53:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.

Bull double and you know it, there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.

What principle?
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:41:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:37:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:15:41 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

Good question. I'm curious as to who he thinks he is addressing --- it seems to be some unnamed atheists "who ride the back of science like it's the final truth". That's not me. In fact, I don't think it's anyone on this forum. Just another theist attacking a strawman. Lol.

The funny thing is that it's not a stawman lol! That's exactly what is happening, you guys think science is the final outcome and if you can't see that in this forum you need to wake up pal.

Oh, I'm wide awake. We don't think science is the "final outcome", whatever that means. Science is a tool, a very useful tool, for understanding our universe. Our understanding will change over time. We not only appreciate this fact, we would be disappointed if there wasn't a revolution or two in store for us. (Those revolutions aren't going to include finding some evidence for gods).

So, yes, it's a strawman. Unless you know our own thoughts better than we do? Lol.

That's a possibility lol JK, what I'm basically getting at is Atheists voluntarily come to a spiritual forum where they then proceed to reject anything spiritual on the basis of scientific understanding, because science has yet to discover or verify it they then pretend that's the end of the discussion and Theists are the dumb ones, and I'm not talking about you personally although I do see what you say but I actually respect your posts. I think you are level headed and you think things through.
But let me tell you or remind you that science is simply our own study of the natural world, it's not equipped to go beyond that because science is basically us using the only way we understand to discern the physical world around us but as the writer mentions in humility, we need to realize our limits.

So my point being is there needs to be a separation of awareness here. This has got to change because Atheists should be doing everything in their power to maximize their knowledge even if it means breaking mindsets, the mindset that sets limits on what is possible. We all can gain from one another and your soul is just as important as mine we are in this together. So I say we change our discourse to further productivity even if that means atheists consider stepping out of the confines of only material things, I mean what the heck are we all doing in spiritual forum anyway if not to discuss things beyond what we know.

The spirit or the existence of a spiritual realm came long before our use of what we call science in modern times, point being we don't use the term "spiritual" to dodge scientific inquiry, this concept has been established long ago, but at the same time it can exist in harmony with science there is no reason for one to reject the other. I say we learn from both and part of spirituality is connecting with one another by give and take. We need more give and take.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:44:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:42:11 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:09:04 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 11:14:09 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

Wise words, indeed. Let's look at them closely to see what is actually being said here. Take this sentence for example:

"the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works"

This has been made all to evident on these forums with believers who constantly argue about evolution, cosmology and biology without knowing anything about the subject matter, their one and only reason is that they believe these subjects somehow jeopardize their religious beliefs. They refuse to learn anything about it but continue to quack notwithstanding.

Here's another:

"This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....."

Yes, notice that it says "newspaper articles" and not papers in peer reviewed journals. Scientists, like anyone else, cannot stop what is being misrepresented in the press, hence any complaints about it should be directed at the media, not the scientists who publish their work.

Somehow you always miss the point, I'm beginning to wonder about that mind inside your head, read the underlined and let is soak in this time.

LOL. I missed the point? Dude, you are missing the point of what you quoted, it is you who needs to read it over and let it soak in...

"This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well"

But then again it's easy to see why when your entire mind is dedicated to debunking anything said, that's why you are bias to the extreme.

LOL. When believers like yourself make erroneous and disingenuous assertions about science related subjects because they are afraid it might jeopardize their absurd and childish beliefs in the boogeyman, it needs to be exposed for the nonsense that it is.

But you don't expose anything. You do a good job of that though.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:52:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:53:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.

Bull double and you know it, there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.

What principle?

The principle of understanding our limits in science as the OP suggests. Taking our knowledge beyond scientific understanding to look into spirituality and understanding the separation of awareness and the nature of both.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:58:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:45:18 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:09:20 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
Thanks to an article that Dee-em posted in another thread we can see a more modest attitude from an intelligent writer for all you who ride the back of science like it's the final truth, learn a good lesson from one of your own...

" However, we remain open to the possibility that we may (and probably will) find, at some point, that there is more to the story than we understand at this moment.

Scientists are generally careful not to claim more than their evidence supports. That point was clearly made in Feynman's quote (on the first post I made in the discussion board) where he emphasizes the need to teach science in a way that makes clear what we know, how we know it, how well we know it, and what we don't understand. This in no way suggests that science is unsure or unreliable, but it reminds us that our current understanding is not the last word on the subject. Practicing scientists know this very well, but the general public is less clear on this concept, mainly because they do not understand clearly how science works. This is made worse when newspaper articles say things like "scientists have proved that....." which suggests that there is nothing more to be said about the subject."
http://oregonstate.edu...

Wise words.

I agree, science reporting is absolutely horrid these days. I even take it a step further.

Take this line from an article.

Researchers have identified two key proteins that act as genetic 'architects', creating the blueprint needed by embryos during the earliest stages of their development.

It is worded like proteins have free will and are "creating" when it is clearly nothing of the sort. Part of the issue is one of language. We humans often use human attributes to describe things which are not human at all. When talking to software developers on a program a conversation can go like this, "Does it know to do _______ when ______?"

It doesn't "know" anything. Technically the question should worded whether the program was designed to identify certain input conditions and produce the right output.

People's eyes get glazed over when talking about technical things and even more so today, complex scientific findings often require complex background understandings so in reporting to the public it gets put in terms that humans can relate to, which in turn introduces inaccuracies via implications from the words used.

From the same article I posted:

Previous work by the research team from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne, Australia, showed that the protein MOZ could relay external 'messages' to the developing embryo, revealing a mechanism for how the environment could affect development in very early pregnancy.

Proteins don't relay messages. They have physical and chemical interactions which have impact upon outcomes.


But with all that said, if I imply from your writing, it is not fair to position science as requiring the same or same level of "faith" as religion. Science is a method, not a belief. It is the most accurate process of uncovering truths that mankind has uncovered. Is it fallible, yes. Can it address all areas we humans are interested in, no.

Great points. Basically I'm implying we need both, we need to understand our physical world an we need to understand the spiritual. We don't need to reject the one over the other we can learn from both. We can learn from one another that's the beauty of it.

Though, in the long run it can address many more things than what one or two generation of humans can imagine. It also has mechanisms in the process to be self correcting as new information is found.

New information in terms of religion is called "heresy"
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:01:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 9:24:00 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.
Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking.

You realize that you can be accused of exactly the same thing, right?

No I don't perhaps you can show me. If there is something you want me to learn I'm all ears but as for now you are the one who came to a spiritual forum, I didn't come to the science or the Atheist forum lol.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:07:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.
EV, as you doubtless know, many conversations between theism and nontheism revolve around the burden of evidence.

As you also know, religious beliefs have very little independently-verifiable evidence for their larger claims, while accepted scientific theories have a great deal of exacting evidence for them.

So where a religious belief conflicts with a scientific theory (e.g. beliefs about the history of the earth, or the descent of life), evidence demands that theological beliefs give way -- and some faithful are better at that than others.

But faith itself also has a reasonable scientific explanation: that it is induced psychosocially by other religious belief.

Psychosocial data actually support this hypothesis better than data support the hypothesis that any particular religion is true.

Consequently, many nonbelievers feel confident in rejecting religion as existing for psychosocial reasons alone, rather than because of any evidence that it's true.

Some manage to express this better than others, but it's an underlying theme.

So while science may not have an authoritative handle on metaphysics, there is still a very coherent, predictive, evidence-based reason for considering religion a man-made idea. And consequently, while nontheism can be very high among scientists, in some surveys it's listed as highest among psychologists and sociologists.

That's not to say you must dismiss faith yourself, but may help explain the confidence of some nontheists in rejecting religion outright on scientific grounds.

I hope this may help.
TheUncannyN
Posts: 95
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:11:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:01:12 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:24:00 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.
Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking.

You realize that you can be accused of exactly the same thing, right?

No I don't perhaps you can show me. If there is something you want me to learn I'm all ears but as for now you are the one who came to a spiritual forum, I didn't come to the science or the Atheist forum lol.

Once again, I ask you, where in the forum guidelines does it state that forum topics cannot be disputed in discussion?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 9:24:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:52:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:53:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.

Bull double and you know it, there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.

What principle?

The principle of understanding our limits in science as the OP suggests. Taking our knowledge beyond scientific understanding to look into spirituality and understanding the separation of awareness and the nature of both.

I still don't get what you're saying about the principle. The OP implies that atheists don't seem to understand the limits of science. Then you imply that atheists bring up this principle in all your discussions with them. Which one is it?

And as far as "taking our knowledge beyond scientific understanding"... If there were a method that allows us to attain knowledge beyond scientific understanding it would be incorporated into the scientific method.
dee-em
Posts: 6,443
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 11:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:41:58 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:37:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:15:41 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.

Good question. I'm curious as to who he thinks he is addressing --- it seems to be some unnamed atheists "who ride the back of science like it's the final truth". That's not me. In fact, I don't think it's anyone on this forum. Just another theist attacking a strawman. Lol.

The funny thing is that it's not a stawman lol! That's exactly what is happening, you guys think science is the final outcome and if you can't see that in this forum you need to wake up pal.

Oh, I'm wide awake. We don't think science is the "final outcome", whatever that means. Science is a tool, a very useful tool, for understanding our universe. Our understanding will change over time. We not only appreciate this fact, we would be disappointed if there wasn't a revolution or two in store for us. (Those revolutions aren't going to include finding some evidence for gods).

So, yes, it's a strawman. Unless you know our own thoughts better than we do? Lol.

That's a possibility lol JK, what I'm basically getting at is Atheists voluntarily come to a spiritual forum where they then proceed to reject anything spiritual on the basis of scientific understanding, because science has yet to discover or verify it they then pretend that's the end of the discussion and Theists are the dumb ones, and I'm not talking about you personally although I do see what you say but I actually respect your posts. I think you are level headed and you think things through.

I disagree, naturally. :-)
You say that atheists reject anything spiritual. Of course we do. Unless you can suggest some criteria by which we can sift out bogus spiritual claims from valid ones (assuming any exist), then what alternative do we have? Surely you would agree that any system for doing this would have to be objective and reliable. Can you suggest one that would verify the truth claims of the spiritual realm?

You say that science has yet to discover or verify the spiritual, but how much time is needed? It would seem to me that there has been ample time if there was anything there to discover. Again, can you suggest how science might go about this quest? Or is it even possible for a system for studying what is real to uncover information which is not part of nature (by definition)?

But let me tell you or remind you that science is simply our own study of the natural world, it's not equipped to go beyond that because science is basically us using the only way we understand to discern the physical world around us but as the writer mentions in humility, we need to realize our limits.

That's fine but religions do make claims which are amenable to scientific research. Science would be more than capable of detecting the following phenomena if they existed:

1. Intercessory prayer can heal the sick or re-grow amputated limbs.
2. Only Catholic intercessory prayers are effective.
3. Anyone who speaks the Prophet Mohammed"s name in vain is immediately struck
down by lightning, and those who pray to Allah five times a day are free from disease
and misfortune.
4. Gross inconsistencies are found in the fossil record and independent dating techniques suggest that the earth is less than 10,000 years old"thereby confirming the biblical account and casting doubt upon Darwinian evolution and contemporary scientific
accounts of geology and cosmology.
5. Specific information or prophecies claimed to be acquired during near death
experiences or via divine revelation are later confirmed --- assuming that conventional
means of obtaining this information have been effectively ruled out.
6. Scientific demonstration of extra-sensory perception or other paranormal phenomena
(e.g., psychics routinely win the lottery).
7. Mental faculties persist despite destruction of the physical brain, thus supporting the
existence of a soul that can survive bodily death.
8. Stars align in the heavens to spell the phrase, "I Exist --- God".

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

So my point being is there needs to be a separation of awareness here. This has got to change because Atheists should be doing everything in their power to maximize their knowledge even if it means breaking mindsets, the mindset that sets limits on what is possible. We all can gain from one another and your soul is just as important as mine we are in this together. So I say we change our discourse to further productivity even if that means atheists consider stepping out of the confines of only material things, I mean what the heck are we all doing in spiritual forum anyway if not to discuss things beyond what we know.

But it's not a Spiritual forum, it's a Religion forum, and we are discussing the claims religionists make. If you want to lobby for a Spiritual forum, I won't bother you there. Not much, anyway. Lol.

The spirit or the existence of a spiritual realm came long before our use of what we call science in modern times, point being we don't use the term "spiritual" to dodge scientific inquiry, this concept has been established long ago, but at the same time it can exist in harmony with science there is no reason for one to reject the other.

No atheist cares much about the personal spiritual beliefs of others. We worry about organized religion and the way it keeps intruding into the secular world. I don't think I need to spell out yet again why atheists argue and fight against this constant pressure. One way we can do this is to point out the problems with religious beliefs, which is why we are here in the Religion forum.

If you want to hold private spiritual beliefs and keep them to yourself, no-one is stopping you. We may or may not agree with them. The question you need to ask is, why are you here then if you object to a critical examination of those beliefs when you make them public? Are you proselytizing? If so, you shouldn't be surprised at some pushback by atheists. We believe in our worldview just as much as you do.

I say we learn from both and part of spirituality is connecting with one another by give and take. We need more give and take.

Humanism teaches this too. It doesn't require spirituality. Spirituality has no monopoly on human beings treating each other better.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:03:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:07:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.
EV, as you doubtless know, many conversations between theism and nontheism revolve around the burden of evidence.

Yes, but with spirituality science goes only so far, which is the point.

As you also know, religious beliefs have very little independently-verifiable evidence for their larger claims, while accepted scientific theories have a great deal of exacting evidence for them.

Of course they do lol, because the larger claim is that God exists and that is something that is out of the hands of science.
Of course scientific theories should have material evidence to support it, that's what science does. But that is not a spiritual subject.

So where a religious belief conflicts with a scientific theory (e.g. beliefs about the history of the earth, or the descent of life), evidence demands that theological beliefs give way -- and some faithful are better at that than others.

But faith itself also has a reasonable scientific explanation: that it is induced psychosocially by other religious belief.

Faith does not describe my belief in God, that is another misconception. "Faith" is a spiritual element that is used in accordance with the persons trust in God. (Hebews 11)

Psychosocial data actually support this hypothesis better than data support the hypothesis that any particular religion is true.

First we need to know what faith means in Christianity, it is not a social factor lol.

Consequently, many nonbelievers feel confident in rejecting religion as existing for psychosocial reasons alone, rather than because of any evidence that it's true.

I'm not sure I'm following you with this one, sounds a little vague.

Some manage to express this better than others, but it's an underlying theme.

So while science may not have an authoritative handle on metaphysics, there is still a very coherent, predictive, evidence-based reason for considering religion a man-made idea. And consequently, while nontheism can be very high among scientists, in some surveys it's listed as highest among psychologists and sociologists.

Of course evidence will show that religion is man made it is, meaning man contemplated it, man wrote it and man teaches it. Why would it not show that?
Just because non theism is high among scientists says nothing about spirituality but rather just interest. Similar to how you may find more fat people working at dunkin donuts lol there would obviously be more material minded people studying material things just like you see with spiritually minded people who are interested in the spirit.

That's not to say you must dismiss faith yourself, but may help explain the confidence of some nontheists in rejecting religion outright on scientific grounds.


I hope this may help.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:09:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 9:11:16 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/21/2015 9:01:12 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 9:24:00 AM, TheUncannyN wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:14:01 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.
Also there are posters here who only repeat the same things over, in other words they have no intention of learning but debunking.

You realize that you can be accused of exactly the same thing, right?

No I don't perhaps you can show me. If there is something you want me to learn I'm all ears but as for now you are the one who came to a spiritual forum, I didn't come to the science or the Atheist forum lol.

Once again, I ask you, where in the forum guidelines does it state that forum topics cannot be disputed in discussion?

You only asked that once and you never showed me where I'm guilty. But nice diversion.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:16:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 8:52:39 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:53:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:57:59 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/19/2015 9:33:24 AM, Double_R wrote:
Science is not and has never has been about finding the ultimate truth, it is about putting together the model which best explains all of the available data. Critical thinking and skepticism demand that the model which best explains all of the available data is the model which should be accepted as the most probable explanation (which translates to belief). No atheist that I have ever come across on this site has suggested or implied otherwise. The only people who don't seem to understand this idea are theists who try to claim that science is "our religion". I guess when you live your life indoctrinated to think that you have found the ultimate truth it can be difficult to understand that not everyone shares that mentality.

Bull double and you know it, there ain't a single conversation I've had with an atheist where this principle does not show up.

What principle?

The principle of understanding our limits in science as the OP suggests. Taking our knowledge beyond scientific understanding to look into spirituality and understanding the separation of awareness and the nature of both.

What the hell are you talking about? It is theists who seem to think that we can extrapolate from scientific data into metaphysical existence claims (ID being the prime example). Every atheist I know rejects god-claims at least in part (and generally primarily) because of exactly that issue - they cannot be evidenced and therefore we've no justification for believing the existential claim in the first place.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 7:49:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 11:17:08 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:41:58 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:37:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/20/2015 8:15:41 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 4/20/2015 12:54:21 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 4/19/2015 7:14:45 PM, TheUncannyN wrote:
I'm just curious as to why you abandon your threads so often.



That's a possibility lol JK, what I'm basically getting at is Atheists voluntarily come to a spiritual forum where they then proceed to reject anything spiritual on the basis of scientific understanding, because science has yet to discover or verify it they then pretend that's the end of the discussion and Theists are the dumb ones, and I'm not talking about you personally although I do see what you say but I actually respect your posts. I think you are level headed and you think things through.

I disagree, naturally. :-)
You say that atheists reject anything spiritual. Of course we do. Unless you can suggest some criteria by which we can sift out bogus spiritual claims from valid ones (assuming any exist), then what alternative do we have? Surely you would agree that any system for doing this would have to be objective and reliable. Can you suggest one that would verify the truth claims of the spiritual realm?

No I cannot show atheists how to discern real spiritual truth from false, this can only take place if the atheist makes a choice to step into it. However most of the things I observe personally make sense to some degree, there are many claims that are out of the realm of being possible, I know that is vague but for now I can produce no method to verify spirituality for atheists.

You say that science has yet to discover or verify the spiritual, but how much time is needed? It would seem to me that there has been ample time if there was anything there to discover. Again, can you suggest how science might go about this quest? Or is it even possible for a system for studying what is real to uncover information which is not part of nature (by definition)?

Science is incompatible with immaterial I can't explain that more simply, and science in and of itself never claims to be able to, it just examines what we feed it. It has no life of its own it is a self made system of observing what we see in the physical nothing more.

But let me tell you or remind you that science is simply our own study of the natural world, it's not equipped to go beyond that because science is basically us using the only way we understand to discern the physical world around us but as the writer mentions in humility, we need to realize our limits.

That's fine but religions do make claims which are amenable to scientific research. Science would be more than capable of detecting the following phenomena if they existed:

1. Intercessory prayer can heal the sick or re-grow amputated limbs.
Prayer is a case by case basis, it is also personal and intimate. Most people who pray have no intention of making a show of it, it is something that is relevant to our own environment.

2. Only Catholic intercessory prayers are effective.

LOL.

3. Anyone who speaks the Prophet Mohammed"s name in vain is immediately struck
down by lightning, and those who pray to Allah five times a day are free from disease
and misfortune.

LOL.

4. Gross inconsistencies are found in the fossil record and independent dating techniques suggest that the earth is less than 10,000 years old"thereby confirming the biblical account and casting doubt upon Darwinian evolution and contemporary scientific
accounts of geology and cosmology.

You should know by now this is not clear across the board. There are varying opinions about Genesis.

5. Specific information or prophecies claimed to be acquired during near death
experiences or via divine revelation are later confirmed --- assuming that conventional
means of obtaining this information have been effectively ruled out.
6. Scientific demonstration of extra-sensory perception or other paranormal phenomena

Um, there are plenty of studies about extra sensory, you need to look a little further but once again it is difficult for science to grasp the immaterial.

(e.g., psychics routinely win the lottery).
7. Mental faculties persist despite destruction of the physical brain, thus supporting the
existence of a soul that can survive bodily death.

How could science verify that with evidence?

8. Stars align in the heavens to spell the phrase, "I Exist --- God".

LOL.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...

So my point being is there needs to be a separation of awareness here. This has got to change because Atheists should be doing everything in their power to maximize their knowledge even if it means breaking mindsets, the mindset that sets limits on what is possible. We all can gain from one another and your soul is just as important as mine we are in this together. So I say we change our discourse to further productivity even if that means atheists consider stepping out of the confines of only material things, I mean what the heck are we all doing in spiritual forum anyway if not to discuss things beyond what we know.

But it's not a Spiritual forum, it's a Religion forum, and we are discussing the claims religionists make. If you want to lobby for a Spiritual forum, I won't bother you there. Not much, anyway. Lol.

What is religion Dee-em lol? Is it not the topic of spirituality??? I'm surprised you went that route.

The spirit or the existence of a spiritual realm came long before our use of what we call science in modern times, point being we don't use the term "spiritual" to dodge scientific inquiry, this concept has been established long ago, but at the same time it can exist in harmony with science there is no reason for one to reject the other.

No atheist cares much about the personal spiritual beliefs of others. We worry about organized religion and the way it keeps intruding into the secular world. I don't think I need to spell out yet again why atheists argue and fight against this constant pressure. One way we can do this is to point out the problems with religious beliefs, which is why we are here in the Religion forum.

But this is not a political forum no matter how hard you try to force it. The people in this forum aren't political figures but just like you and shouldn't be treated as such, we have no intention of forcing you to do anything. Go ahead and topple the system De-em, it will just be replaced by another system that is flawed because we live in a world where everyone wants to eat each other. Just because it would seem that religion has a good clutch on our society at the present you may be surprised at what you see when it's gone so don't be so hasty lol.

If you want to hold private spiritual beliefs and keep them to yourself, no-one is stopping you. We may or may not agree with them. The question you need to ask is, why are you here then if you object to a critical examination of those beliefs when you make them public? Are you proselytizing? If so, you shouldn't be surprised at some pushback by atheists. We believe in our worldview just as much as you do.

Don't try and spin what my point was, my point was made perfectly clear many times over.

I say we learn from both and part of spirituality is connecting with one another by give and take. We need more give and take.

Humanism teaches this too. It doesn't require spirituality. Spirituality has no monopoly on human beings treating each other better.

Didn't say it did, but if you come to a spiritual forum be prepared to hear of a need for spirituality.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 10:26:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/22/2015 7:03:17 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Yes, but with spirituality science goes only so far, which is the point.

Of course scientific theories should have material evidence to support it, that's what science does. But that is not a spiritual subject.

The problem here is that believers don't understand how science works, that it is an extension of how humans view the world. So, if humans are viewing the spiritual, then science must be able to detect and measure what it is they are viewing. If science cannot detect or measure anything about spirituality, then the believer must be questioned as to how they know the spiritual exists.

Instead, the believer invokes the fallacy that the spiritual is out of the hands of science. If that were true, then the spiritual is also out of the hands of the believer. They simply cannot know.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth