And also to Little Nemo’s post above: The discipline of science. I do agree that some parts of it can be somewhat verified by the lay person. But because simple parts of it are personally verifiable one can not make the logical leap that all of it is personally verifiable.
My point in this is science makes the claim that it is verifiable by anyone - I’ve heard such a defense of science on this message board numerous times, but that claim I find false on the basis of the above. You must depend on others, which is OK, but it’s still not verifiable and therefore required faith in others. Science has claimed something to it’s support that simply does not exist. Therefor we can safely remove the claim that anyone can verify any aspect of science. And science is no longer verifiable by anyone but perhaps a few that the rest of us have to trust. I’m not saying that’s bad or wrong, but lets call it for what it is and not over credit it with basically a lie.
My counter point is spirituality is 100% personally verifiable, that’s the only way it works. You find out that you have ‘spirit guides’, if you will, that you can communicate with 2 ways. You don’t need anyone else for this, you personally can find that this is true.
I would also like to add that even if the ‘spirit guides’ are just some mind trick, it is actually very helpful for making decisions and getting answers, if it is a mind trick it is tapping into the mind at a level of great power that usually goes untapped or ignored, so it is a worthwhile pursuit.
The high priest ascends the steps of the Large Hadron Collider temple, allowed in to the most holy of holies, the control seat of the temple complex. He, following the paths and teachings of the ancestors has been the one to enter this temple complex, he is able to interpret the particles and bones and tell the people how his finding influence and control their lives. Only such a high priest is allowed to enter this place, if any other person tries to enter this most holy of holies his life is destroyed and he is confined to a prison cell. Though if a person has such a calling he may be able to follow the path that the high priest has walked, and may, if allowed, be able to enter the Holy of Holies and interpret the partials and bones for the masses, but only by becoming a high priest.
Before y’all try to correct the above abomination of an “analogy”, I’ll point out that you are attempting to argue the definition of Science with the man who posted this..
I disagree with the analogy purely on the basis that the “high priests” in the example are trying to disprove the “teachings” of his ancestors and has no problem in saying they are in fact wrong (through testing and publishing the results). In fact such a high priest is greatly rewarded for doing so and being able to prove it under great scrutiny.
The “High priest” also makes no mention at all of how it should affect your life. In fact there is no part of science which does so.
I think your understanding of science is very flawed…
After looking at the partical and bones and consulting other priests in other temples they pronounce that their gods have spoken and partials can indeed travel faster then light, which means faster internet and computers for everyone and free beer and pizza.
Just pointing out the willful ignorance you display to others-it might save them some time in the future. Another example:
It’s not like you had no way of knowing the name of James Randi-it’s been brought up many times in threads you’ve participated in. Now, I don’t know that you are incapable of learning such a simple name. It might be that you think deliberately misspelling his name is some sort insult. All I know is that if you are unwilling to learn simple things that are handed to you on a silver platter, why should I believe that you have learned anything as complex and demanding as Science with any degree of accuracy?
Right … when a priest finds something spiritual that allows him to build something practical, let us know. Which is not to say that religious people can’t do science. We had a nun who was an engineer, and a very good one, but she didn’t use her religion when doing engineering. She could keep the things separate.
I disagree, unless you can show me an example. Differing interpretations dont count.
I dont understand anything in this sentence. It is a ridiculous analogy if you are referencing the LHC. You have such a twisted view of everything, Im confused.
What scientist builds anything practical? Just like the Oracle of Delphi, scientist go into their temple (labs) and take substances and tools of their trade and do things with them and analyze the results to get the answers from the god.
They don’t build anything, but just say that the gods now have revealed some wisdom, some new property of a substance that bodes well for new ways to fight disease.
It is the engineers that build in accordance to the scientist or the priest. And they have built practical things for religious or scientific priests over human history.
Czarcasm it’s not that I couldn’t find out his name, just that he is so irrelevant and laughable to me that it’s not worth knowing his name, nor the time to look up his name.
I have not asked you for your opinion, nor do I require it of you. May I suggest you return to your lesson of learning about the important of a mothers love for her sick child in giving her child a bowl of chicken soup.
It’s all about Love Czarcasm, learn it, live it, Love it.
I could give you the battle of Elijah and the priests of Baal. Waring nations sometimes let the gods decide instead of using their total armies by a smaller fight. There are many such examples.
Or are you claiming that every single scientist is just out there to prove every other scientist wrong all the time?
I would like to know what any example you suggest of warring is trying to prove, and how one side winning proves their position. Saying God proves it through winning is not a good enough answer. As I said, fighting over interpretations doesnt matter in this analogy
Yes, I am in fact stating that. By using physical laws and theories we have established to work on other theories, or put them to practical use in any form is to test them. The scientists who are trying to break new ground are indeed trying to find the problems in our current theories and see what they can do to solve them or provide alternate answers.
It may not be true that their goal is to disprove accepted terms (though for some it certainly is), there is a great reward for doing so. In order to prove anything you must prove your idea in a way that can not be dismissed.
Anyway I can read you now. This is a total waste of time because unless you personally read something you wont believe it. It is not our fault that you arent willing to prove yourself wrong in this discussion by reading and learning the proofs which you deem to “be a religion.”
You wont even say what part of science you are discussing in this context, other than “the discipline of science” which is incredibly vague and you refuse to define it closer as I have asked in at least two posts.
You defined science as “learning how to learn” and “the discipline of studying our environment.” Both of these are flawed definitions, and while you work under your corrupt definitions you will never “learn.” I suggest you look up what the true definition of science is before you throw the term around as recklessly and as wrongly as you have been.
All of science must be taken on faith by you because you will not make an effort to learn it, or learn to critique and understand it. What is the difference between science and math? Why do you harass science and not math? Is math not taken on faith? Is math not therefore a religion? These are rhetorical questions, please spare us your answer.
I am astounded that you still argue that science is false/unprovable or unproven despite the fact that almost all facets of it have been proven through the physical tools you use. The simple fact that your computer works is a testament to the truth of all theories required in its working.
The point is even if you as a person ignorant to them have to take math and science on faith, they are not in any way religious or a replacement to religion, so using “science” as a replacement in the OP’s example doesnt make sense. The definition of science is not “learning” it is “knowledge and fact,” gained through a method intended to prevent false information.
Religions use unproven (or untestable) beliefs to tell you how to live your lives. Sciences and maths simply tell you how things are, and you can use them in any way you like.
This is all I will say, you have been writing ridiculous and unrelated analogies which are not representing the issues at hand. Im tired of it, have fun with your opiate.
In reading that it (finally…) is clear to me that you dont see the fact that objects and tools were built using those theories as being proof that the theories are true. As a result of this you say we have to take the theories on faith. This is illogical, and this is your only possible argument for taking science on faith.
You really don’t know anything about how science works, do you? Chemist create things directly - chemical engineers make it possible to mass produce those things.
In any case, I’d be willing to accept the priests producing something that can be given to someone else to build. That also never has happened.
Your reply sounds to me exactly how someone who is religious may respond when challenged ‘you don’t care to learn, it is not blind faith, you have to pick a specific aspect of the religion, not religion it it’s entirety, you have misdefined religion’ etc.
So lets take another crack at this from another angle.
Many atheists (or non-believers) accuse the religious folk of blind faith. It is something they abhore in their hearts, becoming a ‘sheeple’ and just following what is fed to you.
I have found that people who accuse are almost always certainly guilty of that themselves, and it is so abhorrent that they must project that on others as them simply can not accept that they are doing exactly that. They will strike out if it is pointed out. This is the speck/log in the eye that Jesus refers to as written in scriptures, you think that the other person has something in their eye, but it’s the object in your own eye that you are seeing.
I believe that is why you have expressed difficult in seeing my analogy, because it is painful to consider that you may be just as lead as the religious folk, if not more (as science makes much stronger claims that religion in our day).
Going back to global warming, what would be the difference if the predictions were made by the scientific establishment or back then something along the lines of the Oracle of Delphi? Both used the best tools and structures and methods to understand the world around them, both uses highly trained people in such disciplines. Both claim a method that one can learn and verify the results, though in practical terms so few do, and the few who do end up to be the ones making the claims.
To the lay person, exactly what is the difference?
Shaman often make medicine, spiritually guided to use and combine plant, animal and other natural material. Also eastern medicine has much to do with spiritual guidance.
While that’s not making a polymer, it is making chemical compounds for the people, which is pretty darn close to the chemist making a product.
Interesting that you know the absolute truth (although you have no way to back it up) and are so certain that they are wrong.
Personally? No. There is no human old or studious enough to learn everything there is to know. But that doesn’t mean that it is theoretically impossible. In theory, a single human, should he live long enough, could verify all the points of data. Meanwhile your god’s existence can’t even be demonstrated outside of your own head in theory.
Man, I’d love some of whatever you’re smoking/eating/snorting. Being able to convince yourself of something you already believe, especially when you are already a little bit on the insane side, is not difficult at all. You could do it with anything, even logically impossible things. It doesn’t mean it’s real, it means you have an overactive imagination.
Ever considered that your “spirit guides” might just be your intuition, disguised by crazy?
You’re either insane or on drugs.
In a very few religions. In most religions, asking questions is a stupid idea.
Simple. The scientist builds the theoretical framework for the engineer to work in. Engineers may have built the nuclear bomb, but without the research and insight of the physicists and chemists who created the theories behind it, it wouldn’t have ever gone anywhere. This knowledge is crucial. It is the real driving force of progress.
Of course missionaries consider it God’s work, but they( like all believers) are passing on the words of humans who stated it was either the word of God, or inspired by God, their belief is in the human that wrote, taught or thought that anything was of God, but it is a proven fact that human’s wrote, thought, taught, and read, the words of other humans.They seem to forget the same Bible quotes Jesus as saying he only came for the House of Israel. Many things that Jesus was said to have taught are never given in any sermon (that I know of) where j
Jesus contradicts some of the other quotes.
There are many factions of Christianity because of this way of belief, each picks and chooses what fits their personal desires, at least that is how it seems to me!