(September 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Unfortunately a lot of my posts were responding to insults. What do you feel didn't make sense? I've posted what I've gathered about scientific perspectives, given an opinion, and asked others for theirs. That is not spam, it's a discussion.

Bullshit. It's about 10 discussions, all variations on a theme: you pretending to engage in open philosophical discussion, while making unsupported assertions in support of your religious beliefs, which you dishonestly hide by claiming to be "agnostic." What are you agnostic about, other than logic and science?

(September 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: The absolute nature of the claims made by scientific fundamentalists seem to depend upon current technology and the accumulation of observation, experience, and opinion formed by those deemed worthy of forming such an opinion. As far as I’m aware, there are no experts who claim to be omniscient, wherefore we must always consider that there may be variables uncontrolled for and information left out.

Atheists, how are you sure that any of the science is the truth? How can you tell? When we have no choice but to accept given after given to try to understand what we’re observing, how can we ever know anything for sure? When “scientific facts” often don’t live up to their predictions, how can we trust? There are many claims about the truth of reality, and many people who pose themselves as experts capable of making such claims. As for me, however, I trust that I perceive. I trust that I observe and form opinion. Beyond that, I humbly admit that I am ignorant with regard to the truth.

How are you so confident?

I'm not always certain that scientific discoveries will not be amended, and that's fine.

I trust the scientific process because it demands that thinking change to comport with reality. Indeed, you seem to think that scientists proclaim unchangeable facts. They don't. If you want certainty, look to mathematics and logic.

Insofar as your observations are concerned, they are often incorrect, as a brief google of "optical illusions" will show you. The scientific method allows for the minimization of such subjectivity, and also of bias and dishonesty. Relying only upon personal observation is a good way go wrong.

Also, wanted to express my appreciation for you providing one more moment of irony in the form of someone decrying science ... online ... with a computer ... powered by electricity ... well, you get the picture.

I hope.

(September 11, 2014 at 10:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Unfortunately a lot of my posts were responding to insults. What do you feel didn't make sense? I've posted what I've gathered about scientific perspectives, given an opinion, and asked others for theirs. That is not spam, it's a discussion.

Bullshit. It's about 10 discussions, all variations on a theme: you pretending to engage in open philosophical discussion, while making unsupported assertions in support of your religious beliefs, which you dishonestly hide by claiming to be "agnostic." What are you agnostic about, other than logic and science?

I started 5 threads, each with their own exploration topic that I was interested in discussing.

I have just as much right to post my opinion on here as you do. We all form opinion based on our experiences and observations. I shared mine and asked for feedback. My opinions were based in science (not religion) and I put them out there willing to be challenged, which is more than I can say for some other people.

I recognize that forum fighting is how many people get their jollies, but I honestly was looking for honest discussion. So, please, unless you want to respectfully offer me feedback that advances my knowledge, back off and let me converse with people who do.

---

(September 11, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Also, wanted to express my appreciation for you providing one more moment of irony in the form of someone decrying science ... online ... with a computer ... powered by electricity ... well, you get the picture.

I hope.

I was not intending to be decrying science, only exploring the limitations of our understanding, which others seem to agree with. I do think we have come a long way from the days of a flat earth that is in the center of the solar system.

This particular debate was a philosophical one that is hard to refute. Reality being real cannot be proven by the scientific method, we either trust that or we don't. Science tells us sense receptors respond to vibrations and give us an experience. It really doesn't clarify anything about what "is". We have to take it as a given to move on with trying to understand everything else.

Beyond that, I'm concerned about some of the variables that have been identified by scientists recently that could be interfering with our ability to get an accurate picture of reality. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" variables are of particular concern as it seems the 96% unobservable reality could possibly influence the 4% observable reality in significant ways.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So, would you say that atheism encourages that continued search for confirming evidence?

Neither yes nor no. Atheism doesn't encourage anything. It is a statement of belief, not anything else.

(September 11, 2014 at 2:27 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: What happens when there is questionable evidence?

Questions get asked, answers get sought.

As opposed to religious thinking, where questions aren't allowed.

(September 11, 2014 at 9:55 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: So, you're saying you do continue in pursuit of knowledge that could possibly confirm an intelligent designer/influencing variable?

If evidence arises that points to a thing, it'd be stupid to ignore it. I just recognize that the time to believe in a thing is when you have positive evidence for it, and that the stronger that evidence is, the more likelihood one should attribute to that thing. At the moment we have very little that actually points to design specifically, which means I don't afford the idea any belief, but that's not the same as concluding that it's impossible.

Quote:If you do that's good. A lot of atheists I know do not.

If that's true, it's not because of their atheism, but something else.

Quote:Beyond that, I'm concerned about some of the variables that have been identified by scientists recently that could be interfering with our ability to get an accurate picture of reality. "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" variables are of particular concern as it seems the 96% unobservable reality could possibly influence the 4% observable reality in significant ways.

The time to believe that some additional, unknown variable is influencing our science is when we have some indication that this is so. Without something detectable, what reason do we have to even suspect it?

Quote:Questions get asked, answers get sought.

As opposed to religious thinking, where questions aren't allowed.

I know that all to well. My mother hated me for many years because I wouldn't just accept that I was supposed to have faith and not ask questions.

(September 11, 2014 at 11:03 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: Reality being real cannot be proven by the scientific method, we either trust that or we don't. Science tells us sense receptors respond to vibrations and give us an experience. It really doesn't clarify anything about what "is". We have to take it as a given to move on with trying to understand everything else.

Reality as in a person's experiences are real. Distinguishing between a subjective or objective experience--or reality--however, is what the scientific method attempts to establish and has proven itself quite adept at doing so. If I hallucinate and see what I take to be the Virgin Mary blowing me kisses, that is a very real experience for me, in a subjective sense, but not something from which we can draw a particular conclusion about objective reality other than what the sciences have already discovered in terms of mental processes.

Quote:The time to believe that some additional, unknown variable is influencing our science is when we have some indication that this is so. Without something detectable, what reason do we have to even suspect it?

Well, in this case, when it's being relied upon to confirm general relativity which is kind of important to our understanding of physics and the evolution of the universe. Also, astrophysicists are claiming "dark stuff" is going around us and through us all the time. They claim that "dark matter" has left "signs of passage" by bumping head on to the atomic nucleus of ordinary matter.

All of this I personally deem worthy of considering it a variable.

In terms of what "is," unfiltered by the mind's categories of understanding, that is a rather meaningless projection. There's no reason to assume that there's anything extra beyond the objects of our senses and their properties that cause us to perceive them as they appear, granting our conceptions of said objects may change as our perceptions of them do.

(September 11, 2014 at 11:50 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote:

Quote:Questions get asked, answers get sought.

As opposed to religious thinking, where questions aren't allowed.

I know that all to well. My mother hated me for many years because I wouldn't just accept that I was supposed to have faith and not ask questions.

Well, why are you "supposed" to have faith?

If I were god, and I had made your beautiful brain, I'd be insulted if you refused to use it and chose instead to accept received "wisdom". In the same vein, if your god is indeed real, I'm comfortable with my atheism, because I reckon that an omnipotent being has nothing to fear from the few questions of a mere mortal.

Your mother is merely symbolic in her behavior ... but you should ponder it and look for the deeper truth her behavior holds.