Remember atheist believer and think Democratic Republican.

[Moonbeam]

He's absolutely insecure. He feels compelled to start threads of this type frequently to convince himself that he is on the side of righteousness, and that anyone who is against him is the enemy. It's the very definition of religion, all of which are based in insecurity.

Hehehehehehehehe Nice example of magical thinking. I bet you believe it.

I almost did to because of all the science you quoted, that is if science is something you can blow our your ass.

 

[CycloWizard]

You are blurring the two different forms of belief together. "Believing" something is true that has basis in reality and has evidence is not the same as "belief" like faith. That is, thinking something without evidence, based solely on dogma, is true.

Believing a piece of wood will float based on induction and deduction is different than believing a man walked on water because some unknown man, who was not present, wrote about it decades after is was supposed to have happened,

You're wrong. Here's why. Something is either true or it isn't. Whether you believe it to be true has no bearing on its truth.

Science is in the business of testing hypotheses. This can only be done in the case where something is measurable. There are many issues to which science has been extrapolated based on mathematical theories which are in themselves abstractions of reality. However, infinitely many models will make the same predictions as any current model. Selecting between these models is a philosophical exercise - not a scientific one. Events in the past are not subject to scientific inquiry since we can't alter the conditions to rigorously examine the hypothesis. The best we can do is the aforementioned extrapolation. However, extension of Duhamel's Theorem clearly indicates that infinitely many initial conditions may give rise to the presently-observable universe. Philosophically, this is interesting because it means that what happened before the advent of science is scientifically unknowable. As a scientist interested in the history of science, I have always found this very interesting. I find it especially humorous today in light of the current "crusade" by many scientists (e.g. Hawking, Dawkins) to disprove the existence of deities using scientific theories in an inherently unscientific manner. In the end, science has no say in unobservable events: they are only of interest in the philosophical domain. This does not say whether or not these scientists are right or wrong - only that their methodology is wrong. They can never uncover the truth using scientific methods which, by definition, can only be used to predict future events.

 

[BoberFett]

Hehehehehehehehe Nice example of magical thinking. I bet you believe it.

I almost did to because of all the science you quoted, that is if science is something you can blow our your ass.

If there's anyone who's an expert at blowing things out his ass, it's you...

 

[Moonbeam]

Atreus21: No, faith is not arbitrarily deciding something to believe in.

M: Didn't say it is arbitrary. This is my very objection to Pastafarians.

A: Some people may arrive at faith blindly, but others may also arrive at it through a reasoned approach.

M: Indeed, some may have real faith blindly and some false faith through reasoning.

A: To put science and faith fundamentally at odds with each other is not only to oversimplify the issue, but to present a false dichotomy.

M: This is exactly what I argued against. Religious people constantly claim that a lack of faith that God exists is a religious belief when all it is is a lack of a religious belief, just as the belief by Republicans and many others that the Democratic party is a religion belief equal to their own. It is not a religious belief, it is a faith in reason, science, and evidence, not a faith in an altered reality in which Republicans are encased.

...I don't understand what you mean.[/QUOTE]

 

[monovillage]

I see no insecurity....why don`t you answer his question??

I believe in science and reason which is one of the reasons I'm a Republican.

 

[Moonbeam]

If there's anyone who's an expert at blowing things out his ass, it's you...

It's no contest. You just blew that right out your ass.

 

[BoberFett]

It's no contest. You just blew that right out your ass.

And what was left looked like you! It's a miracle! A Moonbeam shaped turd!

 

[Moonbeam]

Whether you believe it to be true has no bearing on its truth.

So how is this true?

I recall seeing some research that says when you look at something it fixes a reality that wasn't true before and this truth happens faster than light. I read randomness can be altered by prediction.

I read that all human minds are connected and communicate at a level we aren't conscious of, that the whole hive mind world lit up before 9/11, that random generators went haywire days before the event like never before and never since.

 

[Moonbeam]

And what was left looked like you! It's a miracle! A Moonbeam shaped turd!

Hehehehehe, There's many a chimp that can do what you do. You missed me, but look what you have on your hand.

 

[monovillage]

A good Moonie type article.
http://reason.com/archives/2012/04/21/the-medicalization-of-rebellion/1


The Medicalization of Rebellion
The long, shameful history of using science to stigmatize dissent

n 1861 Samuel A. Cartwright, an American physician, described a mental illness he called “drapetomania.” As Wikipedia points out, the term derived from drapetes, Greek for “runaway [slave],” and mania for madness or frenzy.
Thus Cartwright defined drapetomania as “the disease causing negroes to run away [from captivity].”

“ts diagnostic symptom, the absconding from service, is well known to our planters and overseers,” Cartwright wrote in a much-distributed paper delivered before the Medical Association of Louisiana. Yet this disorder was “unknown to our medical authorities.”

Cartwright thought slave owners caused the illness by making “themselves too familiar with [slaves], treating them as equals.” Drapetomania could also be induced “if [the master] abuses the power which God has given him over his fellow-man, by being cruel to him, or punishing him in anger, or by neglecting to protect him from the wanton abuses of his fellow-servants and all others, or by denying him the usual comforts and necessaries of life.”

He had ideas about proper prevention and treatment:
...........


Scientism

In our scientific age, many people find scientism, the application of the concepts and techniques of the hard sciences to persons and economic/social phenomena, comforting. In truth it is dehumanization in the name of health.

Szasz, a prolific author who celebrated his 92nd birthday earlier this week, writes,

People do not have to be told that malaria and melanoma are diseases. They know they are. But people have to be told, and are told over and over again, that alcoholism and depression are diseases. Why? Because people know that they are not diseases, that mental illnesses are not “like other illnesses,” that mental hospitals are not like other hospitals, that the business of psychiatry is control and coercion, not care or cure. Accordingly, medicalizers engage in a never-ending task of “educating” people that nondiseases are diseases.

No one believes drapetomania is a disease anymore. Slaves had a good reason to run away. We all have reasons—not diseases—for “running away.”

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see them as both inadequate, parodies and shadows of what ought to be. There is much faith in both.

I choose to be agnostic and decide issues, not party. The appeal of reason is no substitute for the real thing. I find that all is vanity.

 

[CycloWizard]

So how is this true?

I recall seeing some research that says when you look at something it fixes a reality that wasn't true before and this truth happens faster than light. I read randomness can be altered by prediction.

You're confusing the difference between analog and binary with true and false. Not only that, but the predictions themselves don't alter randomness - only observing certain quantum phenomena (though that has recently been called into question experimentally).

I read that all human minds are connected and communicate at a level we aren't conscious of, that the whole hive mind world lit up before 9/11, that random generators went haywire days before the event like never before and never since.

Can you reference a paper in which such a theory is scientifically tested, or is this just something you hope is true because you already have faith that it must be so?

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard: You're confusing the difference between analog and binary with true and false. Not only that, but the predictions themselves don't alter randomness - only observing certain quantum phenomena (though that has recently been called into question experimentally).

M: Great, it all means little to me. My point was that you made the statement that whether I believe something or not doesn't make it true and I just wanted to know how you know your statement is true since just because you say it doesn't make it true if what you say is true. I was just thinking that you don't seem to see that what you say might also apply to you.

CW:Can you reference a paper in which such a theory is scientifically tested, or is this just something you hope is true because you already have faith that it must be so?

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Everything I hoped to be true that I had faith was true I destroyed. Then I had to feel the pain I didn't want to feel. I paid quite a price to know nothing.

 

[CycloWizard]

M: Great, it all means little to me. My point was that you made the statement that whether I believe something or not doesn't make it true and I just wanted to know how you know your statement is true since just because you say it doesn't make it true if what you say is true. I was just thinking that you don't seem to see that what you say might also apply to you.

CW: Truth is a property. My efforts to ascertain/measure that property do not change its intrinsic value. This is a fundamental tenet of science without which we cannot even pretend to apply any scientific theories. For example, if I set out to measure the mass of a liter of water at 20°C and arrive at a value of 1.2 kg, does that mean that its true mass is 1.2 kg? No, it means I'm measuring it incorrectly. In other words, I know what I say is true (at least in any reasonable paradigm of thought) based solely on your arguments from the OP (i.e. that you use reason). The alternatives are that you are unreasonable, do not believe in scientific principles, or are trolling. Pick your poison.

M: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

Everything I hoped to be true that I had faith was true I destroyed. Then I had to feel the pain I didn't want to feel. I paid quite a price to know nothing.

CW: This is not an assertion that could be made by anyone claiming to be guided by reason. Reason tells us that correlation and causation are not one and the same. I suspect this is the primary reason the site's author was forced to add the disclaimer that this "is not a project of Princeton University" on the front page. You simultaneously mock those who you claim are unable to reason and disbelieve science, then post a link to an unscientific website as proof of your own fringe belief system. In other words, you mock yourself. Let me know when you are able to make a scientifically testable hypothesis which tests Noetic Field Theory. Until then, realize that, by definition, it is not science until it is formulated in a way which is scientifically testable.

 

[1prophet]

Apologist spending their day trying to back fill history to prove their faith "correct" is not reasoning. I never said humans do not wonder their place in the Universe. Belief in mystical none-sense may be a default position for our brains, just like Santa Claus is for kids. That is a far cry from religious belief and religious dogma being a product of reasoning. In fact is is the exact opposite. With the advent of the scientific method, our application of reason, you have humans losing religiosity except in those places where reason is the enemy of religion; like Afghanistan and the southern US.

And if Santa Claus would happen to appear, would you accept his presents as proof or would you look for some reason to deny him and in the process deny the scientific method and reason itself.

 

[dank69]

And if Santa Claus would happen to appear, would you accept his presents as proof or would you look for some reason to deny him and in the process deny the scientific method and reason itself.

I would never reject Santa's presents.

 

[Darwin333]

No, faith is not arbitrarily deciding something to believe in. Some people may arrive at faith blindly, but others may also arrive at it through a reasoned approach. To put science and faith fundamentally at odds with each other is not only to oversimplify the issue, but to present a false dichotomy.

In today's world probably 85-95% of people did not "arrive at their faith", they were taught it by their parents from birth. Shrug, if you want to play semantics I guess you could say people "arrived at their faith" since being born is a sort of arrival but I doubt that is what you were trying to argue.

 

[Greenman]

The Republican party is a religion and a dangerous one. It is a party of the faithful who believe in lies.

The Democratic party is not a religion but a rejection of Republican faith. These are not two different competing religions.

One uses faith and one uses reason. One believes and one is atheistic.

Where do you stand. Are you a religious believer or do you believe in fact science and reason?

A pox on both your houses the disappointed sing because they see only opposites when the two are completely different things.

That's a pretty lumpy circle you've drawn there, and it appears that you stepped off on the wrong side.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

How is religious faith incompatible with "fact, science, and reason?"

It's not if you adjust it to fit reality, the text itself changed because of that in ALL bibles.

It is if you literally read it and believe it as gods word.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And if Santa Claus would happen to appear, would you accept his presents as proof or would you look for some reason to deny him and in the process deny the scientific method and reason itself.

With evidence i could believe in something to be true as long as the evidence hold up to objective scrutiny (peer review).

Unfortunately it takes faith, and i REALLY cannot believe in any god any more than you can choose to believe that i am god.

 

[Matt1970]

The Republican party is a religion and a dangerous one. It is a party of the faithful who believe in lies.

The Democratic party is not a religion but a rejection of Republican faith. These are not two different competing religions.

One uses faith and one uses reason. One believes and one is atheistic.

Where do you stand. Are you a religious believer or do you believe in fact science and reason?

A pox on both your houses the disappointed sing because they see only opposites when the two are completely different things.

Problem is 41% of Democrats believe god created humans in the last 10,000 years with no evolution involved. Democrats have a lot of the same exact beliefs. Better luck in your next failed thread.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

He's absolutely insecure. He feels compelled to start threads of this type frequently to convince himself that he is on the side of righteousness, and that anyone who is against him is the enemy. It's the very definition of religion, all of which are based in insecurity.

You mean unlike a person who has no dignity and would use some system even though he abhors it's existence? Cuz surely such a person would be an abhorrent hypocrite that deserves no respect.

Right?

Moonbeam has it right. For once in his life.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Problem is 41% of Democrats believe god created humans in the last 10,000 years with no evolution involved. Democrats have a lot of the same exact beliefs. Better luck in your next failed thread.

So you are arguing that the majority of Americans are fucking retards who couldn't pass fourth grade in any western nation besides the US?

Well, that seems about right.

 

[Matt1970]

So you are arguing that the majority of Americans are fucking retards who couldn't pass fourth grade in any western nation besides the US?

Well, that seems about right.

LOL, ya, that sounds about right.

 

[Matt1970]

And BTW, only 19% of Democrats believe god was not involved in one way or another.
Democratic party is a rejection of Republican faith? Not hardly.