I think some of my brain cells just died reading Little Prik's response.

(September 27, 2017 at 10:58 am)Mathilda Wrote: I think some of my brain cells just died reading Little Prik's response.

Careful with that! My back-of-the-napkin calculations show that reading 200 of his posts can result in clinical idiocy.

500 posts could reduce you to his level.

(September 13, 2017 at 2:27 am)JackRussell Wrote: They usually posit some version of Gould's NOMA. Not that I can see how it really helps.

Gould thinks giving something to everyone marks him as a deeper and more enlightened thinker, when in fact it just shows his lack of commitment to intellectual rigor when it doesn’t help him sell books.

---

(September 27, 2017 at 10:58 am)Mathilda Wrote: I think some of my brain cells just died reading Little Prik's response.

Your brain cells must have died before you started reading his response, otherwise you would have saved your time for more useful things.

---

(September 13, 2017 at 4:47 am)ignoramus Wrote: I don't believe neither step on each others toes.

Religion is based on faith, 3rd hand testimonies, and mythology.
Science is based on facts, repeatability, and statistics.

What's the problem?

Religion makes it more likely that science will club people over the head unaware rather than help them out of a tight spot as an trusted ally. Unlike with Christian hell, when science says you will most likely burn, you most likely will.

---

(September 13, 2017 at 5:50 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If religion and science are 1000% opposite, does that negate the very real scientific advancements made by religionists?

Boru

No, science is true even if it is achieved through rote by people who don’t completely believe it.  That’s how science differs from religion.

---

(September 13, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 13, 2017 at 1:49 am)causal code Wrote: A question just popped in my head, that I think is worth sharing.

I was telling somebody today that horoscopes and astrology make no sense. (And that's why astrology (myths) and astronomy (actual science) were separated way back when - "Evidence: Wikipedia Astronomy and Astrology")

This question goes especially to any religious scientist here.

Question is: If science and religion supposedly didn't oppose each other, then why was science separated from religion?

Science is the study of the natural, physical world. Theology deals with the supernatural/spiritual. They are simply 2 seperate fields, not inherently opposing fields.

No, science is the study of all of what actually is.  Religion is merely the indulgence in wishing thinking and the effort to browbeat others into not pointing out the fiction.


Science is in the business of telling religion which of its make beliefs are bull shit.

(September 27, 2017 at 9:34 am)Little Rik Wrote: That is all about the great evolution game FM.
A tree produce a seed that one day will become as the tree that produced it in the first place.
God do the same.
He reduce part of his consciousness to a seed level to see it grow and grow until one day it will become like him.
It is said that we are the image of God rightly so but this image is hidden into a seed which is our consciousness.
Because this seed or consciousness is not yet developed to God level is obvious that it need a medium to grow such as matter, plants, animal and humans and obviously we will have to put up with this medium or body until we merge into God consciousness and become one with it.  

To late to edit that broken link. This one works.

First link worked for me. Second one didn't. Anyway, was funny and appropriate.

(September 26, 2017 at 5:04 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(September 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)Mathilda Wrote: Well I don't have my sock puppets or crayons handy so unfortunately I shall have to rely on just words to explain it to you.

If consciousness was not a function of the physical brain then anesthesia would not work at all.

Here is some peer reviewed evidence for you (unfortunately it also uses words).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2743249/

WRONG ONCE AGAIN MAT.  

Our consciousness is stuck and trapped inside our physical body until physical death will occur.
Only after physical death our consciousness will separate from the dead body as has already been demonstrated by thousand of NDEs.

If during the time that our consciousness is within our physical body an accident to our physical body occur then is obvious that our consciousness will lose her power to operate in part or in full according to the damage done to our physical body.

That doesn't mean that the consciousness is a product of the brain.

Would you be so so stupid to say that a driver that get trapped inside a car after an accident is the product of the car?  

All your example show is that a driver is fit once again after the car get in the condition to operate once again.
And of course the same goes for a consciousness which come back to normality or partial normality once the brain-body has been fixed up.

Get real women and get rid of all these dogmas that you have been spouting quite often so far.    

This is a good tip for your own mental stability.  

(September 27, 2017 at 11:18 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

---

(September 13, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Science is the study of the natural, physical world. Theology deals with the supernatural/spiritual. They are simply 2 seperate fields, not inherently opposing fields.

No, science is the study of all of what actually is. [1] Religion is merely the indulgence in wishing thinking and the effort to browbeat others into not pointing out the fiction.


Science is in the business of telling religion which of its make beliefs are bull shit.

That's absolutely false. Not even close--even if you espouse naturalism. You can study mathematics, logic, philosophy, language, art, aesthetics, morality, human rights, etc--all not science. For crying out loud, science itself relies on a particular philosophy of science to even get off the ground--which is not itself science. CL was right. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it cannot even comment on the supernatural.

(September 27, 2017 at 7:53 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(September 27, 2017 at 11:18 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

---

No, science is the study of all of what actually is. [1] Religion is merely the indulgence in wishing thinking and the effort to browbeat others into not pointing out the fiction.


Science is in the business of telling religion which of its make beliefs are bull shit.

That's absolutely false. Not even close--even if you espouse naturalism. You can study mathematics, logic, philosophy, language, art, aesthetics, morality, human rights, etc--all not science. For crying out loud, science itself relies on a particular philosophy of science to even get off the ground--which is not itself science. CL was right. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it cannot even comment on the supernatural.

That’s bullshit.  Science studies whether logic is justified by any demonstrably effective application. Without what falls under the preview of science logic is nothing.  Science studies whether particular mode of thinking and reasoning leads to the ends by which these modes are justified.  Without that Philosophy is just masterbation.  Science studies the neurology of appreciation for beauty, that is the ultimate master of aesthetics.  Science assesses whether morality leads to the end by which morality is justified, without this morality is just opinionated assholes opinionating.   Even the ultimate desire that motivates humans in any aspect of their behavior at their most basic level is subject to science.  Science studies what social construct will lead to the desire end, and without this human rights is so much hot air.

Science studies whether any human conceit, be it morality, language, mathematics, logic, philosophy, aesthetics, art, has any validity in the sense of doing even a little bit of that by which it is said to be justified.   And science studies why that conceit arises in the first place at the most fundamental level at which any human thoughts and conceit can be said to form.

If it is there in any sense or reality,  science studies it.

(September 27, 2017 at 8:15 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(September 27, 2017 at 7:53 pm)SteveII Wrote: That's absolutely false. Not even close--even if you espouse naturalism. You can study mathematics, logic, philosophy, language, art, aesthetics, morality, human rights, etc--all not science. For crying out loud, science itself relies on a particular philosophy of science to even get off the ground--which is not itself science. CL was right. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition it cannot even comment on the supernatural.

That’s bullshit.  Science studies whether logic is justified by any demonstrably effective application. Without what falls under the preview of science logic is nothing.  Science studies whether particular mode of thinking and reasoning leads to the ends by which these modes are justified.  Without that Philosophy is just masterbation.  Science studies the neurology of appreciation for beauty, that is the ultimate master of aesthetics.  Science assesses whether morality leads to the end by which morality is justified, without this morality is just opinionated assholes opinionating.   Even the ultimate desire that motivates human any aspect of behavior at its most basic level is subject to science.  Science studies what social construct will lead to the desire end, and without this human rights is so much hot air.

Science studies whether any human conceit, be it morality, language, mathematics, logic, philosophy, aesthetics, art, has any validity in the sense of doing even a little bit of that by which it is said to be justified.   And science studies why that conceit arises in the first place at the most fundamental level at which any human thoughts and conceit can be said to form.

If it is there in any sense or reality,  science studies it.

You are a poster child for an extreme version of logical postitivism--a philosophy that have been rejected for almost two generations. It's called scientism:

Quote:Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.
In philosophy of science, the term "scientism" frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[1][2] and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[3] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[4] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[5] and Tzvetan Todorov[6] to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.[7]
More generally, scientism is often interpreted as science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

1. To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[8] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[9] such as when the topic is perceived as beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. This can be a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority. It can also address the attempt to apply "hard science" methodology and claims of certainty to the social sciences, which Friedrich Hayek described in The Counter-Revolution of Science (1952) as being impossible, because that methodology involves attempting to eliminate the "human factor", while social sciences (including his own field of economics) center almost purely on human action.
   
   
2. To refer to "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry",[10] or that "science, and only science, describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective"[5] with a concomitant "elimination of the psychological [and spiritual] dimensions of experience".[11][12] Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[13] Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also appropriated "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge.[14]
   

It is also sometimes used to describe universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".[15] The term "scientism" is also used by historians, philosophers, and cultural critics to highlight the possible dangers of lapses towards excessive reductionism in all fields of human knowledge.[16][17][18][19][20]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism