Shape up and revamp your thoughts.

[MilesTailsPrower]

Hey Fred, you're gonna hear this alot from me. You have no idea what kind of evidence I'm interested in, how or why I reached my conclusions, or the path I took to get there. Deal with your record player, and present your evidence. Reciprocity?

And that was him being friendly, there's a reason he has a dead bunny as his avatar.

You don't start a sentence with "and".

Diamond, are you 100% sure that is a dead bunny?

[Fred]

Chiding people about the burden of proof may be technically correct. It isn't persuasive.

Heh. It does seem to be an awkward fit when the shoe's on the other foot, huh? Bitch about it if it makes you feel better, but you folks have been lobbing that same tiresome "kill shot" at poor fundies forever, and having all manner of fun watching them squirm, but when it comes back at you all of a sudden it's duck and cover.

When you do it you miss a chance to provide someone with actual information. It may just be that they weren't aware of this or that.

Heh. I'll do my best to see if I can provide a smidgen of info along the way. I already tossed in a few choice bits, but they were instantly dismissed without bothering to even examine what was there.

Hey Fred, you're gonna hear this alot from me. You have no idea what kind of evidence I'm interested in,

Fine. But do me a favor. Stop telling me about it and start showing me some of it. This dodging around stuff is a waste of time.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is it you want proof for? The material world? I told you to go kick a rock, have you done this yet?

I didn't instantly dismiss the idea that all religion was pointing to the same truth. It took decades. You just got here at the wrong time.

What else would you like me to tell you about? I've done vedic creation, ants, and touched on a little bit of natural selection.

[Fred]

[quote][quote='Rhythm' pid='174590' dateline='1315260396']
What is it you want proof for? The material world? I told you to go kick a rock, have you done this yet?[/quote]

Sorry, Mr. Johnson, you will have to do better than that. http://bit.ly/ifxpnh

[quote]I didn't instantly dismiss the idea that all religion was pointing to the same truth. It took decades. You just got here at the wrong time.[/quote]

That's all good, as I can't help being late to the party. But your dismissal, whether instant or decades in the making isn't based on anything I can see beyond your say so. Regardless, your assertion that there is little in common in demonstrably false. If you can find a way to dismiss this, have at it, but if you are open to new information and have that scientific spirit that has been dropped by the Certainists amongst the crowd, this ought to whet your appetite nicely: http://bit.ly/5OcF2y

[quote]What else would you like me to tell you about? I've done vedic creation, ants, and touched on a little bit of natural selection.[/quote]

The vedic creation stuff was interesting, though I'm not sure what the point was. It's a given, and a point of pride that science works by refining and recalibrating as it goes. It is hardly alone, however, and your implication that Indian philosophy was only that stuff you wrote is either disingenuous or ignorant, and the notion that it is nothing more than speculative stabs based on nothing is even worse, as it discounts the systematic methodologies that have been developed along the way.

The bit about the ants was thin, and I don't know if you've touched on the birds and the fish I asked you about, but since you asked, I'd like you to at least once to hit head on the issue of materialism being an a priori commitment and the implications of that re the true scientific spirit of dispassionate inquiry. As a bonus, I'd like to have you do so without the weak sauce retort along the lines of "so you are saying we should dispassionately inquire as to the existence of flying Zeusian teapots bullshit, because that's not where I'm coming from, or should.

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly, what is it in string theory, or the idea of holographs that to you, argues against materialism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Theory That Ken Wilber?

Indian philosophy is not only that stuff, I also mentioned Cavarka. That being said, Indian philosophy IS made up of "that stuff". It isn't any more difficult for me to reduce the vedas to the absurd than any other religious text. If you want to cherry pick, go ahead. I'll call you on it though. The account of vedic genesis that I provided doesn't exactly square with biblical genesis, does it? They were speculative stabs, in both cases. They were, in both cases, incorrect. This in the first chapter of either. You posted a quote chiding "just-so" stories, well, these are "just-so" stories. If you want more about ants I'm game, if it was too thin. I didn't address birds or fish because they do not exhibit a "hive mind" as do ants ( I also know more about ants than birds or fish). They group together for survival, not exactly a melding of thoughts. I'm at a loss again here to understand why a school of fish to you implies a "greater something".

That materialism rests upon the observable world, and suggests to us that we should avoid making claims to knowledge that we cannot show anything for is not a weakness. To suggest otherwise is indeed to argue for "flying Zuesian teapots". Whether you are comfortable with it or not. You keep asking this question in every thread as though it hasn't been answered in every thread. What do you feel are the implications? That materialism can only make statements upon which evidence can be leveraged? How is this a problem? What scientific discovery has been made which cannot be quantified, tested, reproduced etc. Should there be different rules for what you believe in? Should scientific endeavors alter the principles that have been shown to work these passed few hundred years because your philosophy doesn't mesh? I hardly think so. If you want to claim knowledge, show something for it. How you plan to provide evidence for the existence of something immaterial is not my responsibility. It's your baby, you raise it.

"The scientific method — the method wherein inquiry regards itself as fallible and purposely tests itself and criticizes, corrects, and improves itself."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


Wait wait wait, are you trying to ask me to disprove the immaterial? Tell you what, you define "the immaterial". So I know exactly what it is we're set to falsify.