An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Deesse23]

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition. More intellectual pursuits like history, literature, and other subjects which require various intellectual skills, are sometimes devalued on this forum in favor of a faith and devotion to science.

History is a science.
Please demonstrate that "other subjects which require various intellectual skills" are "more intellectual pursuits". How do you know what kind of intellect you need to do science? Did you ever do science?

Faith in science: Nice strawman you have there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it, i.e. a fire.

But we get it: You (and people like you) are sooooo intellectually superior, its a grace to us you climb down from your intellectual tower and even interact with people who arent able to follow more intellectual pursuits, like you. How much it must hurt to deal with such mundane things like science and to deal with mundane beings being not-you.

[EgoDeath]

And the defender of the oppressed strikes again.

You're as dramatic as you are boring, LP. Congratulations lmao.

At least have the sack to quote someone when you're being a condescending douche. Just a thought.

You know, maybe if you took a little time to just be nice and try to connect with someone, you'd actually have a life outside of AF. Didn't anyone ever tell you? You don't have to be a smarmy sarcastic little shit 100% of the time. Just figured I'd clue you in.

---

Don't listen to these grouches; I don't think they get outside much.

I think it's actually a bit fun that you've done this. Hilariously ironic because many churches used Latin in their services for many, many years. This is almost a way to take that concept and turn it around on them.

We're going to hit you with some truth but in a language you don't understand so it makes it all esoteric and ritualistic.

Cool idea.

Well, yes, that was kind of what I wanted. It was primarily intended to be an elegant response to religious people saying stuff like "You need to read the Bible in its original languages, or at least in Latin, for it to make sense to you.".

Ah, you couldn't possibly even being to attempt to dismantle my argument! You don't even read the original Latin. Thing get lost in translation, after all.

[Succubus]

You are of course referring to scientism. One of the greatest strawman arguments ever devised.
As for the bolded; who states this? Names please.

Yes, scientism is real, and it's bad. I'm glad we agree on that. 

We agree on that? Evidently you have a problem with reading comprehension, I said no such fucking thing!

As for who states that "only science can tell us anything about the human condition," you are right to call me out on that. It's not something that people are usually willing to say straight out, and I can't provide any links to people who say it.

Then how did you come by this knowledge? Tea leaves, crystal pendulums, squeeing the goats testicles, or did you make it up?

My underline.

Still, I think many things that people are willing to assert aim at that conclusion,

[Cough] Who are these people? Names please.

...and it's one we should avoid.

Musht be shome mishtake.

One of the most anti-intellectual trends I've seen recently is the assumption that only science can tell us anything about the human condition.

Consistency is not your strong point is it.

For example, if you keep your eyes open on this forum you'll see people asserting that only that which science demonstrates can be considered true.

Another testable claim. No, wait..

Sorry, I haven't kept the links.

My I suggest you avail yourself of this forum's excellent search function. Report back, soonest.

I've been told that questions not answerable by science are not even "legitimate" questions, as if it is somehow illegal to ponder them.

 
#3 Who are these people? Names please.

If we add together the ideological position that only science deals with the truth...

#4 See above.

...and that religion is only about obfuscation, I think we get pretty close to the sentence in blue. If we're paying attention, I suspect that one of the more intemperate posters on this forum will provide us with another example soon.

 
Another example? You have yet to provide one.

It was our stem arthropod friend Anomalocaris who confidently told me the other day that life is all about survival, and any pleasure or wisdom gained for its own sake is a waste of time.

 
Full quote please, in context.

Anyway, as I said, I'm glad we agree that things other than science can tell us important things about life.

Who said otherwise? Other than those elusive Scientismists.™

[LastPoet]

You're as dramatic as you are boring, LP. Congratulations lmao.

At least have the sack to quote someone when you're being a condescending douche. Just a thought.

You know, maybe if you took a little time to just be nice and try to connect with someone, you'd actually have a life outside of AF. Didn't anyone ever tell you? You don't have to be a smarmy sarcastic little shit 100% of the time. Just figured I'd clue you in.

Oh, yeah, I wondered why you hadn't moaned about my post. My bad, forgot to directly quote you, but wasn't you that said you weren't replying to people that don't direct quote, anyway?

As to the remainder of your post, shirley you don't thjnk I am a mirror?

[FlatAssembler]

History is a science.

Why do you think that's the case? History doesn't resemble science in any way. Apart from a few exceptions, there are no experiments in history, there is no systematic observation in history, history rarely makes falsifiable predictions, it almost never applies mathematics... At best, you can say it's the softest of the soft sciences, aside from perhaps gender studies (and even that is questionable). Historical linguistics, such as my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms can probably be called science, but history itself can't be.

[EgoDeath]

Oh, yeah, I wondered why you hadn't moaned about my post. My bad, forgot to directly quote you, but wasn't you that said you weren't replying to people that don't direct quote, anyway?

As to the remainder of your post, shirley you don't thjnk I am a mirror?

Oh, so that's the game you're playing? If I don't reply to your thinly veiled insult (thinly veiled by being too cowardice to just simply quote me) all the better, because you get the last word! If I do, you call me out because I'm not supposed to answer to you because you didn't quote me?

How pathetic. I legitimately feel bad for you. That you would play such weird little mind games with someone on the internet you don't even know. You must actually be lonely, despite the jokes I make. You need some friends dude. Or a hobby.

Have a good one. Or try to, at least.

[LastPoet]

Oh, so that's the game you're playing? If I don't reply to your thinly veiled insult (thinly veiled by being too cowardice to just simply quote me) all the better, because you get the last word! If I do, you call me out because I'm not supposed to answer to you because you didn't quote me?

How pathetic. I legitimately feel bad for you. That you would play such weird little mind games with someone on the internet you don't even know. You must actually be lonely, despite the jokes I make. You need some friends dude. Or a hobby.

Have a good one. Or try to, at least.

Well then, fuck off you oversensitive dildo.

[EgoDeath]

Well then, fuck off you oversensitive dildo.

Aw, how cute.

[GrandizerII]

History is a science.

Why do you think that's the case? History doesn't resemble science in any way. Apart from a few exceptions, there are no experiments in history, there is no systematic observation in history, history rarely makes falsifiable predictions, it almost never applies mathematics... At best, you can say it's the softest of the soft sciences, aside from perhaps gender studies (and even that is questionable). Historical linguistics, such as my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms can probably be called science, but history itself can't be.

Science and experimental research are not the same thing. Experiments are one means to do science.

Also nice dig at gender studies. Just so you know, gender studies have involved many experiments. And the conclusions have made sense.

[FlatAssembler]

Why do you think that's the case? History doesn't resemble science in any way. Apart from a few exceptions, there are no experiments in history, there is no systematic observation in history, history rarely makes falsifiable predictions, it almost never applies mathematics... At best, you can say it's the softest of the soft sciences, aside from perhaps gender studies (and even that is questionable). Historical linguistics, such as my alternative interpretation of the Croatian toponyms can probably be called science, but history itself can't be.

Science and experimental research are not the same thing. Experiments are one means to do science.

Also nice dig at gender studies. Just so you know, gender studies have involved many experiments. And the conclusions have made sense.

What experiments? AFAIK, they do include some statistics, but they usually refuse to properly analyze them. You know, like the "gender pay gap", which disappears once you control for other factors.