Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Surgenator]

So your posting psuedoscience crap.

Ok, so double slit experiments? Also psuedoscience?

WTF are talking about now. I never said anything about the double slit experiment. I said the mind-matter interface example.

---

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

I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

[FatAndFaithless]

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...

The "we" is "people on this site". Because you've shown us your magnificent ability to strawman the crap out of just about any statement you see. Which I observed you doing again, so I spoke up. Rhythm doesn't need me to speak for him, and I'm not, I'm simply observing your potentially-intentional misunderstanding of just about anything anyone says to you.

[LastPoet]

You know, agnostics, the coward atheists like I am. I don't believe a god, but I don't rule that out. To all effects, I act as it doesn't exist. No proof except for some stupidly edited books over time that makes me wonder if Parry Potter can be a god in 2 millennia. I think mostly, that people should try to read other books mostly. I am 99.9999...% sure any book written in this tiny place, somewhere, somehow, describing a god, is wrong at every level.

Being agnostic means in knowledge you are not sure. Only the stupid are absolutely sure about, well, quite anything, if you contemplate the stupidity of solipsism.

Being an atheist means you don't BELIEVE in a god, no burden of proof has been made towards that belief. Dreams of philosophy aren't quite enough for me.

[sswhateverlove]

I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

[Surgenator]

I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

Thats where I call bullshit. Your reality contradicts the observables, i.e. the facts.

[Chas]

So, from my research, I think future revelations in genetics and in quantum physics will increase our understanding of the nature of consciousness and the role it plays in our reality. Call me optimistic. 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.

There won't be any 'revelations', that's not the way science works. There will be new knowledge gained from doing science.

And I, for one, don't criticize your ideas because you don't know enough science, it's because you misunderstand the science and trot out demonstrably incorrect statements.

[fr0d0]

I'll coincide that you have examples. And I'll point out what changed their mind was evidence.

And i'd have it no other way. Point is, what evidence currently unknown to us will change what we currently think of as impossible?

That is, to deny something with current evidence prevents science making progress.

[Simon Moon]

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.

So, you are putting a much higher confidence than the actual trained scientists that study these subjects.

Again, what do you know that they don't?

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.

You are passing the burden of proof. Not a very good critical thinker, are you?

[LastPoet]

And my point is that continued research into these sciences will most likely result in evidence that will flip our understanding of reality in much the same way as those examples did.

Funny, for someone using the quite annoying machine, this sub-product of such scientific endeavour. Science, it works, bitches.

[sswhateverlove]

Ok, so double slit experiments? Also psuedoscience?

WTF are talking about now. I never said anything about the double slit experiment. I said the mind-matter interface example.

Um... The "observer effect" via wave function collapse as a result of observation is a concept resulting from evidence from the double slit experiments. These concepts informed mind-matter interface experiments.

I'm just curious how deep youre going with regard to the concepts being pseudoscience?