Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Simon Moon]

My understanding is that most would admit, as I do, that we are humbly ignorant with regard to the total implications of what the science is revealing.

Of course. That is the scientific mindset.

But you go several steps beyond being opened to new evidence.

If you think I'm claiming that I'm drawing absolute conclusions rather than merely speculating based on assumably incomplete data, perhaps you haven't actually read my posts.

Nothing wrong with speculation. What is not scientific is basing a belief on them before the evidence is in.

[FatAndFaithless]

No but seriously SSwhateveryournameis, stop strawmanning us.

[Bibliofagus]

About the 80% thing... Didn't you say you were 80% sure ID was somehow true in your view? Forgive me for asking. I get confused every now and then.

[sswhateverlove]

Well, with a little bit of...reading comprehension, what I got out of that post was that if Rhythm is calling 'chapter 1' how we understand something in our reality, then a "chapter 2" wouldn't have much to say, as it's not in our reality. I highly, highly doubt Rhythm would say we know everything about any topic, let alone one of the most complex and confusing topics of human experience.

So, the 'chapter 2' we were both referring to was in my metaphorical "total knowlege of reality book" and, as I implied we've been getting glimpses of what's on the pages of 'chapter 2' by new revelations of quantum and astrophysics as well as epigenetics.

Rhythm then responded (with regard to that metaphor) that (as I interpreted) he thinks there will be no further explanations regarding consciousness in the 'chapter 2' revelations of science. If that is what he meant, I find it presumptuous, if that is not what he meant, I apologize and request clarification.

[FatAndFaithless]

Well, with a little bit of...reading comprehension, what I got out of that post was that if Rhythm is calling 'chapter 1' how we understand something in our reality, then a "chapter 2" wouldn't have much to say, as it's not in our reality. I highly, highly doubt Rhythm would say we know everything about any topic, let alone one of the most complex and confusing topics of human experience.

So, the 'chapter 2' we were both referring to was in my metaphorical "total knowlege of reality book" and, as I implied we've been getting glimpses of what's on the pages of 'chapter 2' by new revelations of quantum and astrophysics as well as epigenetics.

Rhythm then responded (with regard to that metaphor) that (as I interpreted) he thinks there will be no further explanations regarding consciousness in the 'chapter 2' revelations of science. If that is what he meant, I find it presumptuous, if that is not what he meant, I apologize and request clarification.

I literally just clarified that for you. And even if that's what Rhythm was saying, you don't get to assume that's what everyone else is saying.

[sswhateverlove]

i literally just clarified that for you. And even if that's what Rhythm was saying, you don't get to assume that's what everyone else is saying.

I wasn't. That's why I directed the statement at Rhythm.

And your clarifying does not clarify, because as I said the new revelations of science are, in fact, in our reality.

[FatAndFaithless]

i literally just clarified that for you. And even if that's what Rhythm was saying, you don't get to assume that's what everyone else is saying.

I wasn't. That's why I directed the statement at Rhythm.

Then try to work on your reading comprehension. Nobody is saying what you claim we're saying.

[Surgenator]

Mind-matter interface experiments are an interesting example.

So your posting psuedoscience crap.

Read the opposing views to your theories once in a while. Here is a link discussing the mind-matter interface work done by Dean Radin.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_big_e...upernormal

[fr0d0]

Please give an example of something that science once said was impossible is now possible.

"There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will." -Albert Einstein

The number of scientists and engineers who confidently stated that heavier-than-air flight was impossible

Meteorites: The French Academy of Sciences famously stated that "rocks don't fall from the sky". Reports of fireballs and stones crashing to the ground were dismissed as hearsay and folklore, and the stones were sometimes explained away as "thunderstones" - the result of lightning strikes.

Warm superconductors. Thought to be impossible.

Black holes,1st mooted in the 18th century

Entangled particles that behave as if they are linked together no matter how wide the distance between them

[sswhateverlove]

Mind-matter interface experiments are an interesting example.

So your posting psuedoscience crap.

Ok, so double slit experiments? Also psuedoscience?

---

I wasn't. That's why I directed the statement at Rhythm.

Then try to work on your reading comprehension. Nobody is saying what you claim we're saying.

Why don't you let Rhythm respond for himself? The "we" is misused in this statement. Unless you and Rhythm share a mind? Now that would be interesting...

---

About the 80% thing... Didn't you say you were 80% sure ID was somehow true in your view? Forgive me for asking. I get confused every now and then.

Yes, I would say 80% confident based on my personal opinions formed based on my experience that consciousness/intelliegence plays a much larger role than previously assumed. I'm leaving a pretty big opening (20% chunk of confidence) that science will determine that consciousness/intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with our existence, but I think it's more likely it will be the opposite.

I think leaving 20% open to persuasion is a lot better than 0% or .1%, but that's my opinion. Can't learn what you already think you know, right?