Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[Simon Moon]

Oh, and stop strawmanning people. It's the worst thing you can do in an honest conversation.

Well, in all honesty, your statement "I thought dishonesty was supposed to be a sin?" is a bit of a strawman itself.


sswhateverlove has stated several times that she is not a theist. And specifically does not believe in the Christian god.

[FatAndFaithless]

Oh, and stop strawmanning people. It's the worst thing you can do in an honest conversation.

Well, in all honesty, your statement "I thought dishonesty was supposed to be a sin?" is a bit of a strawman itself.


sswhateverlove has stated several times that she is not a theist. And specifically does not believe in the Christian god.

Stupid mistake? Yes. Forgot that he made it clear he wasn't a theist. Strawman? Not really..I wasn't claiming he was asserting something, I was just trying to make a humorous jab. However, sorry SSWhateveryournameis, I won't call you a theist again.

I stand by the rest of my posts though.

[sswhateverlove]

Your and my opinion of the evidence for or against something is merely that, opinion. I am not claiming you have had any of the experiences that I have had (my evidence), so I make no assumptions you would form the same opinions.

People have asked, so I have shared my opinions. What I have gathered is that many here have seen no evidence of ID based on their experiences, wherefore they assume anyone who claims to have experiences otherwise is full of shit.

Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion.

Your misrepresenting of the scientific discovers is what I took issue with. I've pointed out that dark matter doesn't create scaffolding on a microscopic scale. I've pointed out that you were using many different-mutally-exclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics to justify your claims. And your response is "I have shared my opinions" like your opinions and mine are on the same footing. My opinions are not riddled with such gross errors.

Fair enough.

---

I don't give a shit if you respond to me, buddyboy, I'm voicing my displeasure over your dishonest and repeatedly addressed discussion tactics. I've mentioned your misrepresentation of other peoples' statements and pointed out your misunderstanding of scientific principles. Don't want to keep getting called out? Then fix the problems.

Oh, and stop strawmanning people. It's the worst thing you can do in an honest conversation.

I'm sorry if I do not accept that you have any right to clarify regarding other people's statements.

Also, I think we all may have misunderstandings of scientific principles. I think it's the nature of our lack of omniscience and to be expected. I'm sorry if that keeps me from bowing to your assumed understanding, but I'm just skeptical like that.

---

Well, in all honesty, your statement "I thought dishonesty was supposed to be a sin?" is a bit of a strawman itself.


sswhateverlove has stated several times that she is not a theist. And specifically does not believe in the Christian god.

Stupid mistake? Yes. Forgot that he made it clear he wasn't a theist. Strawman? Not really..I wasn't claiming he was asserting something, I was just trying to make a humorous jab. However, sorry SSWhateveryournameis, I won't call you a theist again.

I stand by the rest of my posts though.

I'm also not a "he", I'd appreciate it if you stopped referring to me as such.

[Jackalope]

i already named 3 very specific areas of research that have found evidence that reality is not as we previously assumed. Do you disagree?

Of course I don't, because that would be silly. I'm fully aware that reality is much stranger than we previously supposed, and that it's likely to get stranger as we delve down the rabbit hole.

What I'd personally be looking for is evidence regarding -your specific speculations- other than the argument from ignorance (e.g. we've been wrong before, we could be wrong now).

If I'm misrepresenting your position, I apologize in advance - this thing has gone around and around so many times that I'm not entirely certain *where* you're coming from.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm also not a "he", I'd appreciate it if you stopped referring to me as such.

Fair enough. Noted.

[sswhateverlove]

i already named 3 very specific areas of research that have found evidence that reality is not as we previously assumed. Do you disagree?

Of course I don't, because that would be silly. I'm fully aware that reality is much stranger than we previously supposed, and that it's likely to get stranger as we delve down the rabbit hole.

What I'd personally be looking for is evidence regarding -your specific speculations- other than the argument from ignorance (e.g. we've been wrong before, we could be wrong now).

If I'm misrepresenting your position, I apologize in advance - this thing has gone around and around so many times that I'm not entirely certain *where* you're coming from.

Thank you for respectfully asking for clarification. I appreciate that. I would say, basically, that those sciences have swayed me to the neutral monist perspective. Beyond that everything else is simply speculating what could possibly be revealed through continued explorations.

[Chas]

Because they're fucking humans. I don't know where you got this theistic concept of "these people are somehow the ones that are supposed to have the knowledge".

Well, inclusion in the NAS seems to imply their expertise and level of respect to be given to their opinion.

Neil Degrasse Tyson has responded to a question similar to mine that the reason is because they are still continuously running up against revelations of experiments that cannot be explained with our current understandings of the laws of science.

There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds.

He argues that 'goddidit' is the fallback of believers. And only believers.

You are mischaracterizing what Tyson has said; that's awfully close to lying.

---

Also, I think we all may have misunderstandings of scientific principles. I think it's the nature of our lack of omniscience and to be expected. I'm sorry if that keeps me from bowing to your assumed understanding, but I'm just skeptical like that.

I'm guessing you don't mean what you just said, because I certainly don't misunderstand scientific principles, nor do many others here.

Do you mean results? data? facts? theories?

[sswhateverlove]

There, he argues, is where "goddidit" ends up becoming the fall back answer, even for the most respected of minds.

He argues that 'goddidit' is the fallback of believers. And only believers.

You are mischaracterizing what Tyson has said; that's awfully close to lying.

I thought that point was clear in the context of my answer. I did not mean to imply that Tyson was saying nonbelievers are saying "goddidit". That would be quite contradictory.

You seem to want to assume that I'm trying to intentionally get over on people by being dishonest. I assure you, that is not at all my motive. If I've misrepresented based on misunderstanding, that's one thing... In this case, however, it seems it was you who misunderstood and misrepresented me.

---

I'm guessing you don't mean what you just said, because I certainly don't misunderstand scientific principles, nor do many others here.

Do you mean results? data? facts? theories?

I think you may understand enough for it to be valuable, but again, lack of omniscience means that there are possibly influencing factors that may not be controlled for when identifing our principles. In this respect, we should all humbly admit that what we have concluded as "fact" based on evidence could eventually be shown to be a misunderstanding of data because of our ignorance regarding unforeseen influences.

[Jackalope]

What I'd personally be looking for is evidence regarding -your specific speculations- other than the argument from ignorance (e.g. we've been wrong before, we could be wrong now).

I would say, basically, that those sciences have swayed me to the neutral monist perspective.

Do you understand why I would be frustrated that the bolded portion of my quote is not answered by the bolded portion of yours in any meaningful way that furthers discusssion.

Unless, of course, you're willing to qualify and quantify *precisely* what about "those sciences" convinced you of the truth of the neutral monist position? So far I haven't seen it, perhaps I missed it.

[sswhateverlove]

I would say, basically, that those sciences have swayed me to the neutral monist perspective.

Do you understand why I would be frustrated that the bolded portion of my quote is not answered by the bolded portion of yours in any meaningful way that furthers discusssion.

Unless, of course, you're willing to qualify and quantify *precisely* what about "those sciences" convinced you of the truth of the neutral monist position? So far I haven't seen it, perhaps I missed it.

I respect that and I don't think I have the time to do it right now.

I would refer you back to what you seemed to get regarding QP and say that the results of those experiments sway me toward neutral monism. Also gene expression studies and psychoneuroimmunology studies make me think that assuming mind and matter are seperate is not going to lead us to a comprehensive understanding of either.

Let me think about this some more and I'll elaborate when I have time.