Dear athiests and "scientists" [Spirituality & Religion]

And how many Christians and creationists "... rely on the stuff people in the past wrote.", without ever questioning what they read.

@Bushranger [quote]They need to stop saying "oh that's not real" when presented with science.[/quote]

What science would that be?

@GodSpeed63 Just like that!

@Bushranger [quote]Just like that![/quote]

I believe in true science. What science do you believe in?

@GodSpeed63 No, you only believe in science that supports your religious beliefs.

@Bushranger [quote]o, you only believe in science that supports your religious beliefs.[/quote]

What religious beliefs would those be?

@GodSpeed63 Funny, not a bad joke. Unless, of course, you are being serious. Then it's just sad.

@Bushranger [quote] Then it's just sad.[/quote]

Why would be sad? I keep telling you, I'm not religious, not in the term you were brought up to believe.

@GodSpeed63 That's why it's sad. You are so fixed on your interpretation that you can't see beyond it. Just like your inability think outside your religious beliefs.

@GodSpeed63


Since when is science a "belief" and since when is there something like "true" science? :o

There is "science" and there is "not science" (which is everything that doesn't belong to "science"). Science is not a belief, it's a methodology for research. Scientists have to confront their believes, because sometimes a hypothesis comes forth from something they "believe". But they want to know if their believe is correct. So they do research to see if their believe system holds up. Those that want to be scientist, have to face the fact that their believe is wrong sometimes, this might hurt and it's difficult to overcome. That's why some "scientist" commit fraude to make their hypothesis seem right when it's not. These people loose their right to be called scientist and lose the claim on doing "science". So they are in the realm outside of it.

There is a debate going on in my country after the passing away of one of our more renowed philosophers in the public debate. According to some people that commented on the news this figure was called a "Englightenment fundamentalist". Now a "fundamentalist" is someone that believes in the strict application and reading of scriptures (it's used in religious terms). And scientists got pretty pissed about it, and rightly so. They apply strict methodology, but they are open for anny scriptures that represent themselves to be true (after evidence, proof, logic, ratio, research etc). So they don't hold to believes. Therefore "fundamentalism" is in direct opposition to "science". Being a scientist means that you have to challenge yourself of given up on your believes.

There is however a problem when science becomes things like "true science" and "believe". We find this to a degree in the grey areas of science, where discussion and research have not found a final conclusion to certain questions that were asked. Economy (for instance) is such a field that can be done in a scientific / methodological way BUT there is not one way of looking at things because of the complexity and the human nature. Economists that "believe" in a diffrent school have the tendencies to move away from science, and move into ideological debates (which are fueled by a number of "believes"). That's why you have so manny vieuws on economy and those that cling to "true economy" often become zealous. Once confronted by the fallacy of their arguments, they seemingly wake up from the dream they have revelled in and face the harsh consequences of their believes that didn't hold up in the real world. Just look at intervieuws economists, bankers, that had an extremely positive vieuw on "neo-liberalist" recipes which all crashed down during the financial crisis. Or read up on the Jacobins during the french revolution.

You also find a problem when "Science" and "Believes" intermix. If for some reason science can be used to give a stronger foundation to a believe... it has the potential to radicalise people. Because they adopted a "believe" which is a really strong thing, and then a part of that believe gets strengtened by research. An example of that is the idea that "Second hand smoke kills" during (what could be called) a cold war on sigaretes. Now... we know that second hand smoke has the potential to harm peoples health, but those that were actively trying to keep smokers from not-smoking suddenly got scientific proof of the problem of second hand smoke. It enforced their stance against tabacco and because it hurts the health, they created slogans (activists, sigh) that are non-nuanced that read "second hand smoke KILLS". The concequence of this is that suddenly a certain group of people started seeing smokers as "murderers" and this gave emotional reactions. Where people got scolded out, yelled at and got shames just for lighting up some tabacco. The emotional outrage was not a measured responds, but a zealous outcry of emotions fueled by a scientific measurement. Was science wrong? No... But peoples reactions were heavily problematic.

And I dislike making prophecies, but if the entire climate debate goes on like this... I think certain countries might have difficulties with young kids fueled by a shallow believe and backed up by scientific evidence... that there is an enormous potential to see them turn radical. Because nuance is important and we see that specially younger people lack nuance quite a bit. And they aren't wrong, climate change is proven (scientifically) to be there, to be of human making and to be highly problematic... however how you deal with that information can be highly dogmatic.

For those that are intrested... read "Carl Schmitt" start with: "Political Theology" , "The concept of the Political" and end with "The crisis in parliamentary democracy". But read him carefully and crticially. And read all the introductions you can have your hands on, because Carl is easy to read but hard to figure out. But if you understand where he comes from, I believe he lays out a good framework on understanding at least a part of our current day politics and how people think. Just don't make him become dogma... cause if you take him literall without nuance you probably end up as a radical.

@Bushranger [quote]That's why it's sad. You are so fixed on your interpretation that you can't see beyond it. Just like your inability think outside your religious beliefs.[/quote]

You never told me what religious beliefs those are. let me ask you, once truth has been established would you want to question it afterwards?

@Kwek00 [quote]Since when is science a "belief" and since when is there something like "true" science? [/quote]

Science itself is not in question, only the hypothesis of some scientists is in question. True science covers all of science at every angle.

@GodSpeed63 If you don't know what your beliefs are by now, then it would be pointless to try to tell you. But seriously, you have expressed your beliefs enough for us all to know what you believe (what a clumsy sentence, shouldn't post while I'm having breakfast). The proble
m with your beliefs is that you won't allow yourself to question them. Even though questioning may actually confirm and strengthen your faith.

If a hypothesis is found to be valid by the scientific method and still disagrees with your beliefs, is it still questionable? I think that unless something fits in with your belief system, you will consider it to be "bad science". Sorry, but you can't pick and chose like that. Science is science, peer review picks up false science. Maybe not straight away, but it's practically impossible to get away with fraud or poor science in the long term.

Oh yes, congratulations on the correct use of hypothesis.

@GodSpeed63 Yo man, I don't know you... so I don't follow you at all. Let's try to explain the ambiguities.

Which hypotheses are we talking about?
What do you mean with "all of science at every angle" and why do we keep making a diffrence between "science" and "true science"?

@Bushranger [quote]If you don't know what your beliefs are by now[/quote]

I know exactly what I believe and know to be the truth. I have no question on that.

@Kwek00 [quote]Which hypotheses are we talking about? [/quote]

The hypothesis that evolution is factual when it isn't. There is no scientific evidence for evolution what-so-ever even though evolutionists would like to have us believe that.

[quote]What do you mean with "all of science at every angle" and why do we keep making a difference between[/quote]

Evolutionists and skeptics only cover part of science when there's so much more to science than they care to elaborate on. Science has been around since before God created man. Pseudo science, which evolutionists and skeptics, doesn't cover the past, the origins of all that is seen and unseen. The future of science is still a mystery to them and to us as well. True science covers past present and future.

I hope I've answered your questions.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]There is no scientific evidence for evolution[/quote]

Would you like some?

@newjaninev2 You don't have any. Nice of you to play along.

@hippyjoe1955 Oh, I have a tsunami of evidence. But then, you already know that, because you and your ilk have spent a great deal of time either ignoring it, or running away from it.

@newjaninev2 None of which is actually evidence. Nice supposition but not evidence. Kind of like you purposeless existence having a purpose. Utter nonsense.

@hippyjoe1955 [quote]None of which is actually evidence[/quote]

None of which you've ever been able to address, refute, or explain.

Never ever.

Not once

Not then... and obviously not now.

@newjaninev2 Actually it is up to you to prove it is evidence. Nice of you to play along.

@hippyjoe1955 As usual, you're backwards on that. Evidence is used to underpin and constrain explanations which, in their highest form, are called scientific Theories.

Would you like to examine the evidence beneath the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection? We could then examine the relevance, cogency and coherence of any alternative explanations you might like to offer

@hippyjoe1955 So, would you like to examine the evidence beneath the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection?

As I said, we could then examine the relevance, cogency and coherence of any alternative explanations you might like to offer

@GodSpeed63

[quote]There is no scientific evidence for evolution what-so-ever even though evolutionists would like to have us believe that.[/quote]

You sure about that? Where did you get your information from?
Last time I checked it out... there was a lot of information on how living organisms mutate and change and evolve to protect themselves for new surroundings. The little tailbone for instance at the end of your spinal chord, you think that little piece of bone is there to test our faith?

[quote]Evolutionists and skeptics only cover part of science when there's so much more to science than they care to elaborate on. Science has been around since before God created man. Pseudo science, which evolutionists and skeptics, doesn't cover the past, the origins of all that is seen and unseen. The future of science is still a mystery to them and to us as well. True science covers past present and future.[/quote]

I thought scientist already cover a lot more then just biology. No denieing there. Not every bit of science is concerned with toppics that clash with our understanding of biblical content. Science isn't really out to get annything except for a continuous search of the truth and finding factual data. But I'm pretty sure people that study evolutionairy theory are looking at all the data. The field is so big, that if they make mistakes on methodology someone in their field will object. No worries.

Calling evolutionairy theory "pseudo science" would need to have some prove to it tough. I think there are a lot of books, websites, articles out there that look at evolutionairy theory and it's not seen as "pseudo science". They don't really get away with pulling stuff out of their arse. They also study the past... it's like a essential thing. Looking for bonestructures, finding out how species changed over time. Evolution is a "process" so saying that they don't look at the past is a bit bizar. Researching the future, is also bizar, you can create models that might generate a good outcome but biology (for as far as I know) is not overall mathematically determined. For as far as I know this subject (I'm not a biologist) we are still trying to figure out as a species why certain mutations pop up.

I find it verry strange that you keep trying to do this mental trick between "science" or "true science". What is scientific is pretty much determined by the methodology. It's either scientific or it's not. There is nothing in between. It's not because you want to rationalise your believes that there is something like "true science" which is supposed to be the science that start from a believe system to begin with. (if that is what you were aiming for)

Oh yeah, and if you think you are right (I've seen you do it before) by giving me bible verses to support your case. Then I'll ask you to what degree the bible is real? I mean if we want to accept the bible as a dataset which we can use for argumentation on real life problems... then at least this dataset should hold up against criticism. Within those people that look at the past (history) we have found that the bible is not a data set like that. It's a religious text, nothing more nothing less. And just like most religious texts it has this tendency to protect itself. Just read the 2nd chapter of the Kuran, read the part of Thomas that questioned if Jesus appeared to the rest of his disciples or read what God things himself of disbelievers living within the community that believes in his word (Exodus 23:20-33). Believe system tends to protect themselves against unbelievers either by mocking them, showing that you can't talk to them (because they are blind and deaf) or by just butchering them and destroying the idea that they ever lived there (full out genocide, go go God). There is a reason for this... because just as God said in Exodus:

[b]33. Do not let them live in your land or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.[/b]

These ideas are all there to protect the faith and bind individuals to the text without letting them think for themselves. Because there is a general fear that if you let non-believers speak out against "faith" that it will slowly erode and go away. Which is a process that you can see in countries where liberal thought has been progressed in the last 100 years after the englightenment. A movement that brought forth a deep believer in ratio, logic and facts... things that scare the hell out of every believer (and their God). Because their believe is founded on nothing else then an ancient text that was written in a time when people didn't understand most of the physics that were happening all around them. The only thing that is making people like you cling to this dataset, is "believe", "faith", fear for the afterlife and the fear of being wrong. But to annyone who is trying to discover what we are doing here, how we came ino excistence, etc... these old answers just aren't good enough annymore. We have progressed to a better methodology, to better research material and to way more valid datasets.