Richard Dawkins Vs Religion

[arildno]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts show a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".

 

[PIT2]

The point has already been explained to you.

And that's another thing:
Do you think you sound cool by writing "u" rather than "you"?
You don't.
All your posts shows a degree of childish petulance to which the appropriate reply is "Shut up until you have grown up".

Writing 'U' is simply a habit of mine, which i havent changed because it is entirely irrelevant in online discussions. U can keep on insulting me, but really it doesnt bother me and so its a bit pointless.

There is a difference between claiming there is no evidence, and admitting that there is evidence but that science does not have the tools to evaluate it. Not being able to evaluate evidence through science doesnt imply that the evidence is false either.

 

[Interposer]

Sorry if i gave u the wrong impression. I dont really care if u think im wordplaying. Have fun with it

I don't really care if you care; I'm simply doing what you insisted must be done and note your unwillingness to concede any point or answer questions now asked in two separte posts. I will therefore continue;

The wordplay is found because to admit a difference between “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” actually sets faith(s) up to not all be the same (illogical to state differences yet also claim sameness). Your ‘continuum’ errs to exclude faith based on no logic and/or evidence whatsoever and must therefore be dismissed as presently worded, thank you.

Put another way, tactical maneuvers at work seem to be; find common agreement/concession not everything is to be understood by science, introduce article of faith, ‘dilute the meaning’ so difference between that which is “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and that which is “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” may be lumped together in bizarre ‘continuum’ where even the most outlandish personal belief system must become indistinguishable from, say, hope that science may yet develop cure for the bald head following partial success of Rogaine and Propicia…
This is not science (makes bad philosophy too, but as now thinking back makes me laugh, thank you again).

As if not enough; To state that ‘hope’ and ‘expectations’ are appeals to faith (as previously stated to another forum member) does injustice to definitions and is further evidence the charge against you of wordplay has merit. Perhaps best to simply call it another act of dilution, yes?

 

[SF]

Did u just say it is evidence, thereby contradicting urself and admitting that what ive been saying all along is true? ;)

Anecdotal evidence is evidence like junk science is science :)

Dont forget love, joy, sadness, anger, etc. Why use double standards?

We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.

Why use the same standard

 

[PIT2]

We can all experience love, joy, sadness and anger, and they can also be triggered by certain substances.

Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.

 

[Interposer]

…People have also been reporting direct experience of god. This is evidence.

Yes, it is evidence; evidence you simply take the word of others when told of something you [no doubt] wish to hear. It is hearsay;
hear•say (hîr'sā')
n.
Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
Law. Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Of course im aware that u and some other people reject the evidence, because it cannot be demonstrated objectively.

’Some other people’?! How quickly the scientific method and all those who practice it are brushed aside.

However, this is an irrational position to hold.

Allow me to testify; I have seen the face of god. This is evidence, yes, and you would be irrational to not accept is as such.

But dont mistake science for a religion. Science is not scientism, and is demonstrably not the only path to truth.

Now you show complete misunderstanding; you actually claim that science is a path to truth when in fact truth has nothing to do with science. Religion has to do with truth and for your abuse of yet another word ‘demonstrably’, pathetic! As I have claimed to see the face of god so you are obligated to accept this as evidence else is charged with accusation of irrationality.
You sir, are ‘demonstrably’ a huckster peddling dubious ware better suited to a non-science forum.

I should inquire of administrator; how such as this finds home at science based/biased physics forum?

 

[PIT2]

The wordplay is found because to admit a difference between “minimally backed up by logic and evidence” and “maximally backed up by logic and evidence” actually sets faith(s) up to not all be the same (illogical to state differences yet also claim sameness).

Faith is a an activity the human mind engages in (believing something to be true without knowing for sure). However, people can have faith in different things. When people have faith in their non-collapsing-chair, this faith is still an activity of the human mind. When people have faith in god, this faith is still an activity of the human mind.

As for the amount of evidence and logic that backs up the faith, see it as the continuum ive described before(with minimally backup up on the left, to maximally backed up on the right). Religious faith can be in one place of the continuum(for instance, somewhere on the left), and non-religious faith (in whatever) can be ahead of it, it can be at the same spot, or even far further to the left on the continuum. Yet it is all in the continuum of faith, just like we all are living in the spacetime continuum

 

[PIT2]

Allow me to testify; I have seen the face of god. This is evidence, yes, and you would be irrational to not accept is as such.

Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.

Who invented the fable that evidence that cannot be tested objectively, cannot be tested and judged according to other criteria?

you actually claim that science is a path to truth when in fact truth has nothing to do with science. Religion has to do with truth

Of course science leads to truths. Truths can be found only through experience, and experience plays a MAYOR role in all of science. However, that does not mean science is the ONLY path to truth.

I should inquire of administrator; how such as this finds home at science based/biased physics forum?

Be careful not to confuse science with scientism.

To quote a little bit:

# Scientism can also mean the couching of religious, untestable beliefs in the cloak of science. For example, if one believes that life extension will produce 1,000-year life spans within the next 20 years, such a belief may be couched in scientific ideology but actually lack the scientific basis of testing. Hence, "scientism" can also be taken to mean "science as religion."[9]

 

[Doc Al]

Faith is a an activity the human mind engages in. However, people can have faith in different things. When people have faith in their non-collapsing-chair, this faith is still an activity of the human mind. When people have faith in god, this faith is still an activity of the human mind.

As for the amount of evidence and logic that backs up the faith, see it as the continuum ive described before(with minimally backup up on the left, to maximally backed up on the right). Religious faith can be in one place of the continuum(for instance, somewhere on the left), and non-religious faith (in whatever) can be ahead of it, it can be at the same spot, or even far further to the left on the continuum. Yet it is all in the continuum of faith, just like we all are living in the spacetime continuum

So... why use the word "faith" if what you really mean is "mental activity"? I suspect your not-so-hidden agenda is to promote the idea the everything is "faith-based", just in different amounts. Nice try! :rofl:

If you have no hidden agenda, then I assume you will readily agree to drop the contentious word "faith" and say what you really mean. Right?

 

[Interposer]

More wordplay;

Of course science leads to truths. Truths can be found only through experience, and experience plays a MAYOR role in all of science. However, that does not mean science is the ONLY path to truth.

Notice alteration of meaning of original quote to now include ‘truths’?

Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.

Oh, so it is in the method is it? But not the scientific method promoted on this physics forum, correct? I suppose this method is the ‘true’ way then, yes?

Who invented the fable that evidence that cannot be tested objectively, cannot be tested and judged according to other criteria?

Who can truly prove it a fable when objective testing is thrown out as requirement?

 

[PIT2]

So... why use the word "faith" if what you really mean is "mental activity"? I suspect your not-so-hidden agenda is to promote the idea the everything is "faith-based", just in different amounts. Nice try! :rofl:

I was specifically talking about believing something to be true, but not knowing it for sure. When people on here claim that consciousness can be explained by physics (some day in the future), or that it has been demonstrated that it originates in the brain, or that it is inseperable from the brain, that there is no evidence for consciousness as something else than the brain, then these are absolutely statements of faith. I didnt even say religious faith, but now that ive seen more comments from SF, it actually is starting to look like religious faith(scientism). Personally i am no great fan of religion, the godly type or the scientism type.

Btw ur correct that i think almost all of our concepts can be seen as 'faith', except maybe the ones which we are sure about (that which we experience directly).

If you have no hidden agenda, then I assume you will readily agree to drop the contentious word "faith" and say what you really mean. Right?

What hidden agenda would i have? Im not religious if thats what u mean, otherwise uve lost me. I have been saying what i wanted to say.

 

[PIT2]

Notice alteration of meaning of original quote to now include ‘truths’?

1 truth, 2 truths. Anything wrong with that?
I see my computer screen, and i also see a whole pack of snickers on my desk. Statements 1 is true, and statement 2 is also true.

Oh, so it is in the method is it? But not the scientific method promoted on this physics forum, correct? I suppose this method is the ‘true’ way then, yes?

It is currently not part of the scientific method, that is correct. Yes, the other method may lead to truths aswell. I dont claim that this other method is the only way to truth. There is nothing shocking in what i claim.

 

[Interposer]

Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?

 

[Interposer]

I believe you have been exposed as masquarade fraud with agenda, yes?

 

[SF]

Good point, and the same point can be made about the people who claim to experience god during meditation. Many others throughout the world and over a timespan of thousands of years have tried it and reported similar experiences. Even u could experience it urself, though it apparently takes many years of practice.

Which god(s) would I experience?

people have experienced alii, yahwii and jesii all the time, but those myhical figures contradict eachother.
allah sais jesus is not his son, but jesus claims he is.. and so on and so forth.
Contradictory! => something is wrong. Either the people are lying or the god(s) don't exist. I suspect both.

 

[PIT2]

Then despite the denial of agenda made to Doc Al it is a method you wish to promote, yes?

Are u joking?

 

[PIT2]

Which god(s) would I experience?

U can read Les Sleeths his own experience here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883156#post883156

 

[Interposer]

At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;

U can read Les Sleeths his own experience here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=883156#post883156

Are u joking?

You are joke; I testify to see god and response is;

Go ahead and describe it. Then tell how u have managed to do it. Then find many thousands of others, spanning back thousands of years, who have also seen the same thing u have, using the same method u have used.

Thus you turn table to establish requirement of ‘method used by thousands of others for thousands of years’ and so forth. Who says there must be a method at all and what method must it now be for acceptance as evidence?
Don’t be irrational, you must believe me. It’s all faith, it all evidence, it all good, remember?

 

[Interposer]

You are a complete utter fraud who dare to ask if it a joke made about having agenda in post#256 and then in very next post#257 gives agenda for all to see. How simple to expose non-science/nonsense!

 

[PIT2]

At last we have the agenda and ware being promoted;

Thats called a 'hyperlink'

 

[Interposer]

You are candidate worthy of ban consideration; promote non-science/nonsense, belittle what this physics forums represents and what science minded members value. Trouble stirrer who enjoy the torment, yes?
This should be possibly my last post in thread so hopelessly off topic no small thanks to yourself wishing to promote hidden agenda at last revealed. I have done what needed doing to expose your wordplay games and pseudo science silliness, thank you.

 

[Evo]

This thread has been going in circles too long.