Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Surgenator]

And, although it may not change anything about what we know to be fundamental with regard to the navigation of our environment (say apple falls down), it doesn't mean looking beyond that and trying to understand how those laws fit into the larger scope of all existence isn't a valuable pursuit. Historically it seems, that type of pursuit has actually been what has resulted in expansion of those ideas, allowing the creation of technology that results in the "impossible" becoming "possible".

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

[sswhateverlove]

And also, as I've stated to others, please drop the name-calling or I will choose not to respond to your posts.

[Simon Moon]

Post in wrong thread.

[sswhateverlove]

And, although it may not change anything about what we know to be fundamental with regard to the navigation of our environment (say apple falls down), it doesn't mean looking beyond that and trying to understand how those laws fit into the larger scope of all existence isn't a valuable pursuit. Historically it seems, that type of pursuit has actually been what has resulted in expansion of those ideas, allowing the creation of technology that results in the "impossible" becoming "possible".

I don't think anyone here would have any major disagreements with this.

But, the time to actually start believing something is when it is supported by demonstrable, falsifiable evidence and reasoned argument.

Proportion the strength of ones beliefs to the strength of the evidence is critical thinking.

Ok, so I said I have 80% confidence in a belief regarding consciousness/intelligence based on my personal reasoning based on experiences and research. I do not assume you have the same experiences or that you have resaerched the same things. My belief is not 100%, because, as you said, there are still so many unknowns, but I've been swayed in that direction.

---

And, although it may not change anything about what we know to be fundamental with regard to the navigation of our environment (say apple falls down), it doesn't mean looking beyond that and trying to understand how those laws fit into the larger scope of all existence isn't a valuable pursuit. Historically it seems, that type of pursuit has actually been what has resulted in expansion of those ideas, allowing the creation of technology that results in the "impossible" becoming "possible".

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

Mind-matter interface experiments are an interesting example.

[FatAndFaithless]

And, although it may not change anything about what we know to be fundamental with regard to the navigation of our environment (say apple falls down), it doesn't mean looking beyond that and trying to understand how those laws fit into the larger scope of all existence isn't a valuable pursuit. Historically it seems, that type of pursuit has actually been what has resulted in expansion of those ideas, allowing the creation of technology that results in the "impossible" becoming "possible".

---

"What a fantastically dishonest and arrogant statement. Nobody here says "we know everything" about anything. I won't call you optimistic, I'll call you a smug douchebag. I'm still irritated about you coming in here and telling us what we believe, and you're still freaking doing it. Nobody believes we know everything aout consciousness, not even close. You and your strawmen can fuck right off."

I was responding to Rhythm (hence I directed the statement that way) because he said,

"If there's a chapter 2, it doesn't look like it would have anything further to say on the subject."

Was I supposed to interpret that as he think someday we will possibly learn more about consciousness than we currently do?

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 no, I'm still not going to call you optimistic, and you don't get to suggest that

You can stick with 'no way Jose' and assume we already know everything there is to know about it, but I think that's a bit presumptuous

Nobody says that. At all.

[Simon Moon]

Ok, so I said I have 80% confidence in a belief regarding consciousness/intelligence based on my personal reasoning based on experiences and research. I do not assume you have the same experiences or that you have resaerched the same things. My belief is not 100%, because, as you said, there are still so many unknowns, but I've been swayed in that direction.

Why haven't the vast majority of scientists in these fields, who actually understand the evidence, who have dedicated their lives to study, who work with it every day, reached the same conclusions as you have?

What do you see, at your admittedly layperson level understanding, that they don't see at their expert level of understanding?

[Cyberman]

You can stick with 'no way Jose' and assume we (or you Rhythm) already know everything there is to know about it, but I think that's a bit presumptuous.

I agree. That's horribly presumptuous. Principally because I don't recollect anyone other than you saying that.

[sswhateverlove]

Why haven't the vast majority of scientists in these fields, who actually understand the evidence, who have dedicated their lives to study, who work with it every day, reached the same conclusions as you have?

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.

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.

[Simon Moon]

You can stick with 'no way Jose' and assume we (or you Rhythm) already know everything there is to know about it, but I think that's a bit presumptuous.

No one here says anything of the sort.

I thought you were over this assumption of our position.

I'll bet every atheist here is open to being swayed by demonstrable evidence.

I love being proved wrong. That means I just learned something new. I live for learning new things.

Got any you can actually support with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument? Or is all you have just optimism?

[Surgenator]

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

Mind-matter interface experiments are an interesting example.

So your posting psuedoscience crap.