Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
science just a faith?
76 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 12:36:28 AM2/28/13
to
what can you really know besides that you exist?
we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
quo inference until we have better inference
science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the parts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
just like all other faiths
we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
pursuits of better status quos
if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
if we are given a logical realm to develop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
science are off, and we just live in the day there
--
Dale
we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
quo inference until we have better inference
science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the parts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
just like all other faiths
we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
pursuits of better status quos
if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
if we are given a logical realm to develop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
science are off, and we just live in the day there
--
Dale
RAM
Feb 28, 2013, 1:10:02 AM2/28/13
to
On Feb 27, 11:36�pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
> quo inference until we have better inference
>
> science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
> we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLEhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
> quo inference until we have better inference
>
> science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
>
> we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the partshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
> but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
> forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
> even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
> just like all other faiths
>
> we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
> inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
> pursuits of better status quos
>
> if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
> the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
> is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
> believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
> this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
>
> if we are given a logical realm to develophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
> but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
> forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
> even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
> just like all other faiths
>
> we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
> inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
> pursuits of better status quos
>
> if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
> the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
> is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
> believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
> this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
>
> maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
>
> but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
> science are off, and we just live in the day there
>
> --
> Dale
Are you always this confused?
>
> but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
> science are off, and we just live in the day there
>
> --
> Dale
eridanus
Feb 28, 2013, 8:14:37 AM2/28/13
to
El jueves, 28 de febrero de 2013 05:36:28 UTC, Dale escribi�:
there is a serious difference between science and religions and other
philosophies.
While the so call science, focuses its attention mostly on material
facts, uses some inferences over selected data of material facts,
religions Use to focus their attention about written testimonies,
about gods, demiurges, or other agents that perform supernatural
tasks.
Then we have the brad of philosophers that focus their interest in
metaphysical concepts and other abstractions difficult to grasp for
outsiders.
The difference is obvious. Then base of these groups is have a
"knowledge" or Science. In the past it was called, sometimes
knowledge, sometimes wisdom. But word "science" was chosen to mean,
we were treating about material questions; not the traditional
materials that occupied the minds of learned people.
About certitudes... we cannot have an absolute certitude in science,
but in the most trivial subjects.
Then, even if considering objective data, science is not any easy to
master and had been increasing becoming more and more complex in the
last 150 years. Because of this complexity, science had been divided
and subdivided in numerous sets, for not man can learn it all.
So, replying to your subject; for most people "science" is a matter of
faith for they never achieve the degree of learning to understand any
of the sets of science, except for the most trivial concepts in maths
and geometry.
Then, to the average person, science is also a matter of faith. There is
not any way for them to check on the soundness and a particular argument
in science. All matters you believe based on some authoritas is based on
faith, even if they are not matters of religion.
Then, I can discern three realms of knowledge, physical, metaphysical and
theological.
Then, science treats matters "physical".
Eridanus
philosophies.
While the so call science, focuses its attention mostly on material
facts, uses some inferences over selected data of material facts,
religions Use to focus their attention about written testimonies,
about gods, demiurges, or other agents that perform supernatural
tasks.
Then we have the brad of philosophers that focus their interest in
metaphysical concepts and other abstractions difficult to grasp for
outsiders.
The difference is obvious. Then base of these groups is have a
"knowledge" or Science. In the past it was called, sometimes
knowledge, sometimes wisdom. But word "science" was chosen to mean,
we were treating about material questions; not the traditional
materials that occupied the minds of learned people.
About certitudes... we cannot have an absolute certitude in science,
but in the most trivial subjects.
Then, even if considering objective data, science is not any easy to
master and had been increasing becoming more and more complex in the
last 150 years. Because of this complexity, science had been divided
and subdivided in numerous sets, for not man can learn it all.
So, replying to your subject; for most people "science" is a matter of
faith for they never achieve the degree of learning to understand any
of the sets of science, except for the most trivial concepts in maths
and geometry.
Then, to the average person, science is also a matter of faith. There is
not any way for them to check on the soundness and a particular argument
in science. All matters you believe based on some authoritas is based on
faith, even if they are not matters of religion.
Then, I can discern three realms of knowledge, physical, metaphysical and
theological.
Then, science treats matters "physical".
Eridanus
Dexter
Feb 28, 2013, 12:41:31 PM2/28/13
to
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0b12cb89-2fe2-4fa4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
No, he has to sleep sometime.
news:0b12cb89-2fe2-4fa4...@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Are you always this confused?
______________________________________________________
No, he has to sleep sometime.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2013, 1:51:00 PM2/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:36:28 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
To answer the question posed in the Subject: field, "No,
it's a process used to study the observable universe".
>what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
>we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
>quo inference until we have better inference
>
>science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
>we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLE
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>
>we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the parts
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
>but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
>forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
>even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
>just like all other faiths
Not really. Religious faiths rely on testimony, with
physical evidence either not considered at all or rejected
if it contradicts the faith.
The only "faith" in science is the belief that the universe,
while sometimes opaque, is never actively dishonest and
follows fixed rules; i.e., what we observe today we will
also observe tomorrow, even though the interpretation of
that observation may change with additional observations.
This is diametrically opposed to religious faith, in which a
capricious (and unobserved) deity exists who can change the
rules at will.
>we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
>inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
>pursuits of better status quos
>
>if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
>the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
>is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
>believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
>this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
It does; we see it frequently. Science doesn't depend on it;
in fact it rejects it.
>if we are given a logical realm to develop
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
>maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
>
>but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
>science are off, and we just live in the day there
The assumption that a "higher realm" exists is no different
from any other religious belief; there's no actual evidence
of its existence. Science works with evidence, not
unsupported belief (other than as noted above).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
To answer the question posed in the Subject: field, "No,
it's a process used to study the observable universe".
>what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
>we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
>quo inference until we have better inference
>
>science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
>we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLE
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>
>we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the parts
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
>but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
>forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
>even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
>just like all other faiths
physical evidence either not considered at all or rejected
if it contradicts the faith.
The only "faith" in science is the belief that the universe,
while sometimes opaque, is never actively dishonest and
follows fixed rules; i.e., what we observe today we will
also observe tomorrow, even though the interpretation of
that observation may change with additional observations.
This is diametrically opposed to religious faith, in which a
capricious (and unobserved) deity exists who can change the
rules at will.
>we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
>inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
>pursuits of better status quos
>
>if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
>the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
>is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
>believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
>this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
in fact it rejects it.
>if we are given a logical realm to develop
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
>maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
>
>but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
>science are off, and we just live in the day there
from any other religious belief; there's no actual evidence
of its existence. Science works with evidence, not
unsupported belief (other than as noted above).
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Burkhard
Feb 28, 2013, 2:09:09 PM2/28/13
to
On Feb 28, 5:36 am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
You don't exist, sorry. I dreamt you after over-eating on Welsh
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
rarebit.
>
> we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
> quo inference until we have better inference
>
> science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
>
> we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the partshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
> but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
> forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
> even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
> just like all other faiths
>
> we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
> inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
> pursuits of better status quos
>
> if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
> the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
> is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
> believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
> this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
>
> if we are given a logical realm to develophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
> but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
> forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
> even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
> just like all other faiths
>
> we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
> inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
> pursuits of better status quos
>
> if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
> the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
> is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
> believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
> this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
>
Mark Isaak
Feb 28, 2013, 2:36:21 PM2/28/13
to
On 2/27/13 9:36 PM, Dale wrote:
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
I know that I exist, and I know that the first television family to own
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
a home computer was the Addams Family. Beyond that, importance drops,
so knowing things does not matter as much anyway.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 2:54:55 PM2/28/13
to
On 02/28/2013 01:51 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> Science works with evidence, not
> unsupported belief
science makes an assumption, an hypothesis and sets out to prove it by
> Science works with evidence, not
> unsupported belief
inference
inference is faulty
in another group someone introduced me to the "turkey inference"
the farmer feeds the turkey
the turkey thinks the farmer is a friend
then the farmer kills the turkey
--
Dale
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 2:56:18 PM2/28/13
to
On 02/28/2013 02:36 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/27/13 9:36 PM, Dale wrote:
>> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> I know that I exist, and I know that the first television family to own
> a home computer was the Addams Family. Beyond that, importance drops,
> so knowing things does not matter as much anyway.
>
I think living good matters, this is why more people adhere to religion
> On 2/27/13 9:36 PM, Dale wrote:
>> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> I know that I exist, and I know that the first television family to own
> a home computer was the Addams Family. Beyond that, importance drops,
> so knowing things does not matter as much anyway.
>
than science and atheism
--
Dale
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 3:17:16 PM2/28/13
to
reality with another state of conscious
unless you want to add an imaginary axis and an illogical axis to the 4
dimensions of spacetime, etc., illogical might be more fitting than
imaginary since everything is existential not imaginary or non-existential
--
Dale
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 3:17:45 PM2/28/13
to
Dale
Feb 28, 2013, 3:55:18 PM2/28/13
to
On 02/28/2013 08:14 AM, eridanus wrote:
> Then, I can discern three realms of knowledge, physical, metaphysical and
> theological.
>
> Then, science treats matters "physical".
everything that exists is existential even theology, because dreams and
> Then, I can discern three realms of knowledge, physical, metaphysical and
> theological.
>
> Then, science treats matters "physical".
visions exist, therefore they are existential
in your premise we should add and imaginary axis to 4 dimensional space
time, etc., think weshould add an illogical axis, since the illogical is
existential
--
Dale
RAM
Feb 28, 2013, 5:16:18 PM2/28/13
to
way of organizing ideas in a problematic fashion so it can be tested
empirically (usually it is drawn from an extant scientific theory).
If it is not possible to construct an empirical measure of even one of
the ideas in the research hypothesis, then it is not possible to test
the adequacy of the hypothesis.
Please note scientists don't use the concept of prove. They use terms
like "empirically demonstrated", "statistically significant
relationships", "empirically verifiable relationships" etc.. And thus
the theory from which the research hypothesis was drawn is always
viewed as "provisional" and never proved.
A strong scientific theory is one that has received numerous and
varied scientific research support in a variety of scientific peer
reviewed professional journals. The theory of evolution is one such
theory. It is important to note that there is much competition among
scientists to "one up" each other if they see a flaw in research
hypotheses, methods or inferences or if they can propose new avenue of
research and thus provide a corrective to current scientific
understandings. So the fallacy of affirming the consequent, a
potential problem in scientific research, is overcome by problematic
research hypotheses, finding new avenues of research or for falsifying
hypotheses, and competition for professional recognition in peer
reviewed research.
Faith is in the scientific researcher's ability to produce better
insights into nature by employing the tools of science to do it. This
faith however is tested "empirically" by science outcomes and is
qualitatively different from "religious faith" which "arbitrarily
assumes an untestable religious construction of reality and then
posits it as 'sacred and true'."
Your confusions are not sciences' limitations.
Lastly your "turkey inference" parable assumes this is how science
engages in "inference" and assumes scientists are as dumb as a
turkey. Your "turkey inference" is exactly what all the theologians
in the world have done and still do. They assert a logical
relationship between concepts/ideas and propose an hypothesis and
state the expected outcome as an anomaly. An then proceed as if what
they have proposed is a "reality 'sui generis' " when in reality it is
a "socially constructed reality"
They never think to measure all the variables in the proposed
hypothesis since they think it is obvious and would be absurd to do
it. But let me show you why it is a dumb hypothesis. A scientist
would have to measure "the turkey thinks the farmer is a friend." So
is the turkey there for food or friendship? We don't know. Likewise
I don't think the turkey knows either. So this presumed step of
"friendship" between feed and food is specious and unknown it not
unknowable.
Further your "turkey inference" parable assumes an anthropomorphic
conception of turkeys that is not empirically accessible. The turkey
could be neutral to anyone who feed him as long as they feed him.
Still further the "turkey inference" parable is "really" about
"chumming" a documented hunting practice in many cultures. People
historically have also caught fish this way and hopefully you will
see, if you employ fish in your "turkey inference" parable, it really
doesn't hold water.
Again, your confusions are not sciences' limitations.
jillery
Feb 28, 2013, 5:33:46 PM2/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:54:55 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>On 02/28/2013 01:51 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Science works with evidence, not
>> unsupported belief
>
>science makes an assumption, an hypothesis and sets out to prove it by
>inference
>
>inference is faulty
All entirely incorrect.
>in another group someone introduced me to the "turkey inference"
>
>the farmer feeds the turkey
>
>the turkey thinks the farmer is a friend
>
>then the farmer kills the turkey
That's because turkeys are gobble-ible.
wrote:
>On 02/28/2013 01:51 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Science works with evidence, not
>> unsupported belief
>
>science makes an assumption, an hypothesis and sets out to prove it by
>inference
>
>inference is faulty
>in another group someone introduced me to the "turkey inference"
>
>the farmer feeds the turkey
>
>the turkey thinks the farmer is a friend
>
>then the farmer kills the turkey
Bob Casanova
Mar 1, 2013, 1:44:22 PM3/1/13
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:54:55 -0500, the following appeared
hypotheses; this is basic to the process.
Since you snipped the other points in my response, I assume
you accepted them as correcting your errors. OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>On 02/28/2013 01:51 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Science works with evidence, not
>> unsupported belief
>science makes an assumption, an hypothesis and sets out to prove it by
>inference
Nope. The aim of the process is to attempt to *dis*prove
>> Science works with evidence, not
>> unsupported belief
>science makes an assumption, an hypothesis and sets out to prove it by
>inference
hypotheses; this is basic to the process.
Since you snipped the other points in my response, I assume
you accepted them as correcting your errors. OK.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 1, 2013, 2:28:36 PM3/1/13
to
On 02/28/2013 02:09 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Feb 28, 5:36 am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> You don't exist, sorry. I dreamt you after over-eating on Welsh
> rarebit.
Then how do I perceive him also unless Berkeley was right and you are
> On Feb 28, 5:36 am, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
> You don't exist, sorry. I dreamt you after over-eating on Welsh
> rarebit.
indeed God. If so, how can you let evils such as boy bands and "reality"
TV exist? Have you some deep seated resentment of your creation?
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 1, 2013, 2:41:50 PM3/1/13
to
On 02/28/2013 02:56 PM, Dale wrote:
Science can help us gain knowledge, which can have good (or bad)
results. Atheists can do good things, like not wasting time on church.
All religion does is instill fear which might help people conform to
societal norms, where much of what is good is defined. Religion can
justify genocide or slavery.
And partly doing good stems from inner values, which may be influenced
by genes for helping kinfolk (which can unfortunately lead to genocide).
Doing good could also be a matter of empathy and sharing with unrelated
others and extending the charmed circle. The only religion that extends
the charmed circle that I can think of is Jainism and they take it too
far to be very good for me. If by avoiding a bug from hitting my
windshield I swerve and cause a 50 car fatal pileup on the interstate,
where is the good in that? And some extend the charmed circle secularly
by developing a misanthropic attitude. They chain themselves to trees or
protest animal research which may help find treatments for diseases. Or
they wish the extinction of humans to facilitate saving the bunnies and
deer.
Burkhard
Mar 1, 2013, 3:04:36 PM3/1/13
to
Hemidactylus.
I'm afraid you're not really posting here right now.
You have this dream sequence in your natural memory banks, and you're
making this up as you go along.
I was sent in as a security measure. I'm afraid to tell you this Mr.
Hemidactylus, but you have suffered a schizoed embelism, we can't snap
you out of your fantasy. I was sent here to try to talk you down.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 1, 2013, 3:34:46 PM3/1/13
to
Dale
Mar 1, 2013, 5:33:50 PM3/1/13
to
theories of everything, religion will be around
--
Dale
RAM
Mar 1, 2013, 6:51:43 PM3/1/13
to
some of your ignorance about the parameters of religion and your own
illogic.
Religion is sociologically viewed as providing justification for the
extant moral system and when it doesn't it marginalizes itself and
becomes sectarian. Thus dominant religions take on the dominant
values in the culture. And in ours it is capitalism, military might,
personal wealth generation and individualism. There are tensions
between these dominant values and various religions values. As a
result religions down play their tensions by not focusing on them in
religious teachings and in the pulpit.
For example, how may Christian religious groups, churches, and
dominant religious spokes-people spoke out against going into the war
with Iraq. Suddenly all these theoretically "peace" loving Christians
ignored or positively supported the war effort and ignored their own
dominant theology of Jesus' tenants around loving their enemies and
turning the other cheek. This is of course par for the course for
ever war America has engaged in. The tension are compromised so often
and so blatantly, they become accepted quietly by almost all active
Christian. This is the institutional illogic between so called
strongly professed religious beliefs and how they are practiced. Thus
dominant religions must acquiesce to the dominant political and
economic values and celebrate them when in crisis or they will become
sectarian and marginalized.
Glenn
Mar 1, 2013, 7:02:04 PM3/1/13
to
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:36587e06-8a40-4379...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
Louann Miller
Mar 1, 2013, 7:33:25 PM3/1/13
to
Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:6cnvtl....@news.alt.net:
>
> until science addresses issues of the psyche like the illogical in their
> theories of everything, religion will be around
Trust me, you don't want to read any neurobiology.
>
> until science addresses issues of the psyche like the illogical in their
> theories of everything, religion will be around
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 1, 2013, 7:36:40 PM3/1/13
to
why credit card companies tend to be located in states like Delaware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquette_Nat._Bank_of_Minneapolis_v._First_of_Omaha_Service_Corp.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29#Seventh_Circle_.28Violence.29
A fitting end.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 1, 2013, 7:48:56 PM3/1/13
to
Will in New Haven
Mar 1, 2013, 9:30:02 PM3/1/13
to
think. Your lectures on "Dale's thoughts" are incredibly boring and
people only respond to you out of kindness.
Now shut the fuck up.
Cordially as always
--
Will in New Haven
RAM
Mar 1, 2013, 9:57:04 PM3/1/13
to
On Mar 1, 6:02�pm, "Glenn" <gl...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:36587e06-8a40-4379...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
That makes non sense.
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:36587e06-8a40-4379...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
RAM
Mar 1, 2013, 10:28:22 PM3/1/13
to
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_%28Dante%29#Seventh_Circle_.28Vi...
>
> A fitting end.
The evidence suggests Christians as well as other religions
compartmentalize religious beliefs and practices when they conflict
with values and practices of the larger society. Paradoxically, in
doing this they can view themselves as being more religious and
righteous because they have the right values but are prevent from
acting on them by the immoral or amoral non-religious as well as other
religions who don't share their particular values.
Compartmentalization operates on a psychological level as well and
reinforces the social practices of various groups.
Walter Bushell
Mar 2, 2013, 7:37:05 AM3/2/13
to
In article
<85d4a43e-ccd1-4c1f...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Ah, but remember these are corporations doing this. Most people
believe that corporations have no soul so no biggie. And if
corporation do have a soul, who cares?
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
<85d4a43e-ccd1-4c1f...@p5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
believe that corporations have no soul so no biggie. And if
corporation do have a soul, who cares?
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Desertphile
Mar 2, 2013, 11:15:17 AM3/2/13
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:36:28 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
> science just a faith?
Okay, I give up: what FAITH dictyates (requires, mandates) that one
abandon one's belief when demonstrated wrong?
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"What is necessary is never unwise."
wrote:
> science just a faith?
Okay, I give up: what FAITH dictyates (requires, mandates) that one
abandon one's belief when demonstrated wrong?
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"What is necessary is never unwise."
Tim Norfolk
Mar 2, 2013, 4:32:13 PM3/2/13
to Deser...@spammegmail.com
J. J. Lodder
Mar 3, 2013, 3:06:58 PM3/3/13
to
Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Of course it is.
Everything is just faith.
Take it from me,
Jan
Of course it is.
Everything is just faith.
Take it from me,
Jan
Dale
Mar 3, 2013, 10:13:08 PM3/3/13
to
I think you can know you exist because you have various consciousnesses
of your will
I agree that not only science is a faith, but religion is a faith too
I think religion is as popular as it is, is because it prioritizes
psychology, psychiatry and sociology
these are higher necessities in life, other material things follow
some religions act like governments because they proceeded secular
governments in this role, like the ten commandments, etc.
law and government mainly deal with the after effects of bad psychology,
bad psychology and bad sociology
secular determinists don't think any of these things play a role in
causality
until the mainstream scientific institution secular government put aside
determinism and takes up the necessities of life, religion will prevail
I take up faith in God out of fear out of the possibilities of him being
the alpha male/female/etc.
I take up faith in various parts of religion, mainly Hinduism, because
it logical to me sociologically
I also take up faith in science and logic because I fear the illogical
I want to be first a good person, and then a hedonist as it is compatible
--
Dale
Bob Casanova
Mar 4, 2013, 1:18:38 PM3/4/13
to
On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
No, we'll let you keep your faith.
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
RAM
Mar 4, 2013, 1:51:27 PM3/4/13
to
On Mar 3, 9:13 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 03/03/2013 03:06 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2013 03:06 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Of course it is.
> > Everything is just faith.
>
> > Take it from me,
>
> > Jan
>
> I agree, it is up to you what to put faith in, except for one thing
>
> I think you can know you exist because you have various consciousnesses
> of your will
>
> I agree that not only science is a faith, but religion is a faith too
>
> I think religion is as popular as it is, is because it prioritizes
> psychology, psychiatry and sociology
? Explain rather than assert. Exactly how does religion prioritize
>
> > Of course it is.
> > Everything is just faith.
>
> > Take it from me,
>
> > Jan
>
> I agree, it is up to you what to put faith in, except for one thing
>
> I think you can know you exist because you have various consciousnesses
> of your will
>
> I agree that not only science is a faith, but religion is a faith too
>
> I think religion is as popular as it is, is because it prioritizes
> psychology, psychiatry and sociology
sociology.
>
> these are higher necessities in life, other material things follow
>
> some religions act like governments because they proceeded secular
> governments in this role, like the ten commandments, etc.
>
> law and government mainly deal with the after effects of bad psychology,
> bad psychology and bad sociology
And economics and political science.
> these are higher necessities in life, other material things follow
>
> some religions act like governments because they proceeded secular
> governments in this role, like the ten commandments, etc.
>
> law and government mainly deal with the after effects of bad psychology,
> bad psychology and bad sociology
>
> secular determinists don't think any of these things play a role in
> causality
>
> until the mainstream scientific institution secular government put aside
> determinism and takes up the necessities of life, religion will prevail
>
> I take up faith in God out of fear out of the possibilities of him being
> the alpha male/female/etc.
>
> I take up faith in various parts of religion, mainly Hinduism, because
> it logical to me sociologically
? Explain.
> secular determinists don't think any of these things play a role in
> causality
>
> until the mainstream scientific institution secular government put aside
> determinism and takes up the necessities of life, religion will prevail
>
> I take up faith in God out of fear out of the possibilities of him being
> the alpha male/female/etc.
>
> I take up faith in various parts of religion, mainly Hinduism, because
> it logical to me sociologically
J. J. Lodder
Mar 4, 2013, 6:00:15 PM3/4/13
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Of course it is.
> >Everything is just faith.
> >
> >Take it from me,
>
> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
You object to my handing it out,
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Of course it is.
> >Everything is just faith.
> >
> >Take it from me,
>
> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
to needy souls such as Dale?
That's cruel,
Jan
Mitchell Coffey
Mar 5, 2013, 1:14:22 AM3/5/13
to
On 3/4/2013 1:18 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it is.
>> Everything is just faith.
>>
>> Take it from me,
>
> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
>
Good one.
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
>> Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Of course it is.
>> Everything is just faith.
>>
>> Take it from me,
>
> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
>
Mitchell
Bob Casanova
Mar 5, 2013, 1:06:38 PM3/5/13
to
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013 00:00:15 +0100, the following appeared in
>That's cruel,
So is detox.
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >Of course it is.
>> >Everything is just faith.
>> >
>> >Take it from me,
>>
>> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
>
>You object to my handing it out,
>to needy souls such as Dale?
Not at all; you made no mention of sharing.
Lodder):
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Mar 2013 21:06:58 +0100, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >Of course it is.
>> >Everything is just faith.
>> >
>> >Take it from me,
>>
>> No, we'll let you keep your faith.
>
>You object to my handing it out,
>to needy souls such as Dale?
>That's cruel,
So is detox.
John Stockwell
Mar 5, 2013, 10:15:32 PM3/5/13
to
On Wednesday, February 27, 2013 10:36:28 PM UTC-7, Dale wrote:
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
>
>
> we don't know much else for sure, so we infer, and place faith in status
> what can you really know besides that you exist?
>
>
>
>
> quo inference until we have better inference
>
>
>
> science comes from the latin word scientia meaning "knowing"
>
>
>
> we can know by deduction, deciphering the parts from the WHOLE
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
>
>
>
> we can know by induction, getting the whole from ALL the parts
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
>
>
>
> but we really don't know the WHOLE or ALL the parts, so we use partial
>
> forms of these like observation, theorems, ANOVA, etc.
>
>
>
> even modern science is just a faith and follows the philosophy of faith,
>
> just like all other faiths
>
>
>
> we infer, and place faith in status quo inference until we have better
>
> inference, the caveats are conservative status quos and aggressive
>
> pursuits of better status quos
>
>
>
> if we don't know much besides that we exists, forms of the philosophy of
>
> the self and living would seem to be the priority and therefor religion
>
> is not that far off and considering a far majority of people on earth
>
> believe in a religion this rings true to me, at least
>
>
>
> this said, it all depends on whether illogic exists
>
>
>
> if we are given a logical realm to develop
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28illusion%29
>
> maybe we avoid illogic to the most degree
>
>
>
> but if illogic exists in the higher realm, all bets on the faith of
>
> science are off, and we just live in the day there
Science is an investigative program. It is not a collection of beliefs.
Science relies on the observation that there is regularity in the
behavior of the universe. Science relies on our ability to apprehend
phenomena, comprehend, and communicate what we observe and what we theorize
about phenomena (augmentation of our senses, our ability to communicate,
and to comprehend phenomena through instrumentation is common).
The result of science is not a belief system, but rather a system of theories
that generate testable hypotheses. This is a light and agile intellectual
system that allows scientists to update the structure of knowledge as new
information is collected.
You will notice that nobody issues a new addition of the Bible, with, for
example new dates for the age of the earth, or commentary on all of that
nonsensical worldwide flood stuff. No Bible comes with an errata sheet,
or a list of future work to be done, or of unresolved issues. People
are reading the same old crap that people read centuries ago.
-John
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dale
Glenn
Mar 5, 2013, 10:31:01 PM3/5/13
to
"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e58177e1-8120-4c42...@googlegroups.com...
snip
>
> You will notice that nobody issues a new addition of the Bible, with, for
> example new dates for the age of the earth, or commentary on all of that
> nonsensical worldwide flood stuff. No Bible comes with an errata sheet,
> or a list of future work to be done, or of unresolved issues. People
> are reading the same old crap that people read centuries ago.
>
Did you think about this before sending it, or were you like on autopilot?
> You will notice that nobody issues a new addition of the Bible, with, for
> example new dates for the age of the earth, or commentary on all of that
> nonsensical worldwide flood stuff. No Bible comes with an errata sheet,
> or a list of future work to be done, or of unresolved issues. People
> are reading the same old crap that people read centuries ago.
>
John Stockwell
Mar 6, 2013, 9:48:03 AM3/6/13
to
yet we know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
-John
-John
Harry K
Mar 6, 2013, 10:09:29 AM3/6/13
to
On Mar 6, 6:48�am, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:31:01 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
> > "John Stockwell" <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e58177e1-8120-4c42...@googlegroups.com...
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 8:31:01 PM UTC-7, Glenn wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > You will notice that nobody issues a new addition of the Bible, with, for
>
> > > example new dates for the age of the earth, or commentary on all of that
>
> > > nonsensical worldwide flood stuff. No Bible comes with an errata sheet,
>
> > > or a list of future work to be done, or of unresolved issues. People
>
> > > are reading the same old crap that people read centuries ago.
>
> > Did you think about this before sending it, or were you like on autopilot?
>
> There are new translations of the Bible, but there is not even an errata sheet,
> yet we know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions:
>
> �http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradiction...
> > snip
>
> > > You will notice that nobody issues a new addition of the Bible, with, for
>
> > > example new dates for the age of the earth, or commentary on all of that
>
> > > nonsensical worldwide flood stuff. No Bible comes with an errata sheet,
>
> > > or a list of future work to be done, or of unresolved issues. People
>
> > > are reading the same old crap that people read centuries ago.
>
> > Did you think about this before sending it, or were you like on autopilot?
>
> There are new translations of the Bible, but there is not even an errata sheet,
> yet we know that the Bible is loaded with contradictions:
>
>
> -John
>
> -John
Another one is "The Skeptics Annotated Bible". It matches verse to
verse along with theist attempst oto handwave the contradictions away.
Harry K
0 new messages