Originally posted by Proper Knob And how does that explicitly relate to atheists and not theists or deists?
because its implicit it forming your world-view and how it relates to your own thoughts
and opinions of various issues, thus you are being led in the same way as the sheep,
only under the guise of being independent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie because its implicit it forming your world-view and how it relates to your own thoughts
and opinions of various issues, thus you are being led in the same way as the sheep,
only under the guise of being independent.
That's right, unlike you, i read science books and make an evaluation with my own mind.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo " the positivism of many scientists,whether latent or open,is incomaptible with skepticism,for it accepts without question the assumption that material effect is impossible without material cause."
Which is not true at all. As far as I know, scientists (unlike some theists) leave open the possibility that some things are uncaused.
I would also like to know from you, what alternative types of causes you can think of, and explain to me in scientific terms how you think they would work. I am just trying to clarify what you mean by 'material'.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie because its implicit it forming your world-view and how it relates to your own thoughts
and opinions of various issues, thus you are being led in the same way as the sheep,
only under the guise of being independent.
I am tempted to give two more quotes: "sociologists coined the term"scientism" back in the 1940s when they realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories as simple,unquestioned Truths,just like believers in any"ism" and thus we often acted like any prejudiced "believer"especially outside our immediate areas of expertise".(http://issc-taste.org/index.shtml)
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo I am tempted to give two more quotes: "sociologists coined the term"scientism" back in the 1940s when they realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories as simple,unquestioned Truths,just like believers in any"ism" and thus we often acted like any prejudiced "believer"especially outside our immediate areas of expertise".(http://issc-taste.org/index.shtml)
yes, you cannot question science, if you do, you are a lunatic, despite its very own
creation story, miracles and faith in unobserved phenomena.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo I am tempted to give two more quotes: "sociologists coined the term"scientism" back in the 1940s when they realized that many scientists unthinkingly accepted many scientific theories as simple,unquestioned Truths,just like believers in any"ism" and thus we often acted like any prejudiced "believer"especially outside our immediate areas of expertise".(http://issc-taste.org/index.shtml)
The 2nd quote is too long. Just look up http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070416/full/070416-9.html)
Originally posted by twhitehead Which is not true at all. As far as I know, scientists (unlike some theists) leave open the possibility that some things are uncaused.
I would also like to know from you, what alternative types of causes you can think of, and explain to me in scientific terms how you think they would work. I am just trying to clarify what you mean by 'material'.
Well,as a theist,I can think of God as a cause. By the way , by 'material' what was meant was ' made up of matter ' or ' of matter '.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo Well,as a theist,I can think of God as a cause. By the way , by 'material' what was meant was ' made up of matter ' or ' of matter '.
So what is God made of, and how does something that is not matter, interact with something that is?
Originally posted by twhitehead So what is God made of, and how does something that is not matter, interact with something that is?
My Belief says God pervades everthing in this Universe and even beyond. I do not claim to ' know ' how God works. I think scientists also cannot explain why the rules of science are the way they are.But my belief says God works.
Originally posted by twhitehead Which is not true at all. As far as I know, scientists (unlike some theists) leave open the possibility that some things are uncaused.
I would also like to know from you, what alternative types of causes you can think of, and explain to me in scientific terms how you think they would work. I am just trying to clarify what you mean by 'material'.
It is claimed that even ' consciousness ' has real measurable effects on physical processes.( http://noosphere.princeton.edu/conclusions.html )
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes, you cannot question science, if you do, you are a lunatic, despite its very own
creation story, miracles and faith in unobserved phenomena.
Of course you can question science, whatever that actually means. Your 'beef' is that science doesn't corroborate your Biblical myth you believe in, if science did corroborate your myth then your views towards science would be very different indeed. Heck, you may even read science book!! 😉
Originally posted by Proper Knob And how does that explicitly relate to atheists and not theists or deists?
***********BUMPED**************
For rvsakhadeo -
A scientist or a group of scientists who,for the moment,have a working hypothesis which explains the phenomenon under examination very satisfactorily ( till some phenomenon comes up and upsets the hypotheses.)
And how does that explicitly relate to atheists and not theists or deists?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo My Belief says God pervades everthing in this Universe and even beyond.
But that implies his is therefore physical. How can one talk of something having location (a property of physical things), then simultaneously claim it is non-physical?
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo It is claimed that even ' consciousness ' has real measurable effects on physical processes.( http://noosphere.princeton.edu/conclusions.html )
So, is conciousness physical or non-physical?
Do scientists accept that conciousness has a real measurable effect on physical processes?
If 'yes', to the above, doesn't this contradict your original assertion?
19 Sep '11 10:45
Sheep's Tale
Back to Top