Life after death

[Skeptical]

LG

Do you have any real scientific education?

Science is not, repeat not, based on faith. It is based on data that is obtained through studies of the real universe, rather than the imaginary reality that religicos are so fond of.

Certainly we have to study scientific theory for years. A craftsman has to study at his trade for years to become a craftsman. Science is no different. However, what makes science different to religion is that we can repeat the experiments and observations that previous scientists used to garner the scientific picture of the universe we use today, and get the same results.

In religion there is no building on prior knowledge, or repeatability of experiments and observations.

Instead, we see some deluded individual claiming to be a prophet with visions, and if that character is sufficiently charismatic, a new religious faith develops. You just have to look at Mormonism, where the founder (Joseph Smith) was a convicted fraudster who wrote a book of fiction, which he claimed was dictated by an angel, and began a religion, in which the followers paid him a tithe and the women went to bed with him. No wonder he was eventually lynched!

Other religions may have founders who were simply insane, rather than con artists, but the end result is the same. A whole bunch of credulous people living out someone else's dream.

Science changes constantly with new knowledge, building upon that which has already been discovered. Religions change only when a new deluded but charismatic prophet creates a new faith. There is no truth in religion - just wishful thinking.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

Do you have any real scientific education?

sure
Do you have any philosophical training?

Science is not, repeat not, based on faith. It is based on data that is obtained through studies of the real universe, rather than the imaginary reality that religicos are so fond of.

I think you miss the point.
Both are identical in that they rely on a professional core who in turn spells it out for the rest of us.
For instance I doubt you have undergone greater than 1% of the data collection for all the scientific truths you hold us valid. In fact its absurd to expect you to.
Intelligence demands that we hold a certain array of professionals as capable (all according to the degree of faith that we hold in them).

Your assumption that the professional core of theism operates solely out of imagination is a reflection of your values at best and a consequence of your ignorance on the subject at worst. Its certainly not an empirical conclusion.

Certainly we have to study scientific theory for years. A craftsman has to study at his trade for years to become a craftsman. Science is no different. However, what makes science different to religion is that we can repeat the experiments and observations that previous scientists used to garner the scientific picture of the universe we use today, and get the same results.

the "we" is actually a professional core.

In religion there is no building on prior knowledge, or repeatability of experiments and observations.

for a starter it works differently so its not really valid to talk of it in terms of "building on prior knowledge" or "experimenting" although there are certainly aspects of observation and experience (although they occur on the level of being/consciousness, which in turn has no empirical gauging).

The repeatability is certainly there however (although there may be slight variance in time, place and circumstance ... just like there is a similar variance in medical procedures given the variety of situations that surround ill people)

Instead, we see some deluded individual claiming to be a prophet with visions, and if that character is sufficiently charismatic, a new religious faith develops.

actually all we are seeing at the moment is your inability to examine an argument

You just have to look at Mormonism, where the founder (Joseph Smith) was a convicted fraudster who wrote a book of fiction, which he claimed was dictated by an angel, and began a religion, in which the followers paid him a tithe and the women went to bed with him. No wonder he was eventually lynched!

lol

I guess this the latest contender to ...

and African witch doctors represent the pinnacle of theistic discipline?
Just like god sending a bear to dismember some antagonistic persons is the key teaching of Christianity?
Just like casual sex is the essential narrative climax of Rapunzel?

... too which we can now add ....

Just like the development of Mormonism is an typical representation of the development of theism in society.

Other religions may have founders who were simply insane, rather than con artists, but the end result is the same. A whole bunch of credulous people living out someone else's dream.

far from tightening the fatal comprehension flaws of your argument, you are simply widening them

Science changes constantly with new knowledge, building upon that which has already been discovered. Religions change only when a new deluded but charismatic prophet creates a new faith. There is no truth in religion - just wishful thinking.

sure - that's your opinion

Now your task is to present valid premises that frame your conclusion and we can begin the task of examining a coherent argument

I mean so far you haven't painted any essential distinction between the two since some real head spinners have also made their mark in the field of science (take eugenics for example or the delsuion/charisma issues which overwhelm the process of grant applications ).

 

[Billy T]

... I tend to draw from the vedic position ... and it tends to solidify when practically applied (as opposed to speculating about it)...

I did not know what that was so I looked it up. It seems to be an ancient Indian form of astrology. Can you say a few words about how that "is applied." Do your really think the positions of the planets is important for your life? Helps you make decisions? etc. Is that how you apply it?

I understand the normal meaning of solidify, but surely you don't mean a liquid becoming a solid. What do you mean?

 

[Skeptical]

LG

The gist of our disagreement boils down to the evidence we accept. You seem to be happy to accept 'evidence' that has no tangible existence - the kind that appears inside your mind and nowhere else. Such evidence has no validity to anyone able to think in a rational manner.

I require evidence that meets scientific standards. That is what rationality requires.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG

The gist of our disagreement boils down to the evidence we accept. You seem to be happy to accept 'evidence' that has no tangible existence - the kind that appears inside your mind and nowhere else.

actually its more about what you think empiricism is capable of - namely everything

Such evidence has no validity to anyone able to think in a rational manner.

actually its not rational to expect empiricism to have a monopoly on all knowable claims because of its severe epistemological limitations.

I require evidence that meets scientific standards. That is what rationality requires.

actually that's what professional science requires - extrapolating that need to all knowable claims is kind of like extrapolating all measuring to thermometers because one thinks Celsius is a real nifty unit (never mind that litres and cm are also out there)
:shrug:

 

[Skeptical]

I do not believe empiricism is capable of anything. As I said very clearly, sometimes we have to accept there are things we do not know. However, that is simply a cause to pause - not an excuse to swallow intellectual nonsense without evidence - the leap of faith.

Faith is another word for gullibility. The opposite of gullibility is skepticism.

 

[Big Chiller]

I do not believe empiricism is capable of anything. As I said very clearly, sometimes we have to accept there are things we do not know. However, that is simply a cause to pause - not an excuse to swallow intellectual nonsense without evidence - the leap of faith.

Not pausing is exactly what you have done and then went ahead with asserting your own conclusion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not pausing is exactly what you have done and then went ahead with asserting your own conclusion.

precisely

 

[lightgigantic]

I did not know what that was so I looked it up. It seems to be an ancient Indian form of astrology. Can you say a few words about how that "is applied." Do your really think the positions of the planets is important for your life? Helps you make decisions? etc. Is that how you apply it?

Probably would have been better to check out "vedas"

I understand the normal meaning of solidify, but surely you don't mean a liquid becoming a solid. What do you mean?

i mean that there are issues of practical application which take things beyond mere theory

 

[wynn]

i mean that there are issues of practical application which take things beyond mere theory

Sure. But what to do when this practical application feels like something from this page?

 

[lightgigantic]

Sure. But what to do when this practical application feels like something from this page?

look for something more appropriate I guess

 

[wynn]

look for something more appropriate I guess

If some private sense of appropriateness is to be the measure of things, then what is your argument for not taking Skeptical's path?

 

[Skeptical]

Not pausing is exactly what you have done and then went ahead with asserting your own conclusion.

Quite the contrary.
I became a religious non believer at age 15, after many years under the influence of my religious parents. I am now 62, meaning I have had 47 years to ponder the question of evidence for and against religious beliefs. That is hardly 'not pausing'!

 

[lightgigantic]

If some private sense of appropriateness is to be the measure of things, then what is your argument for not taking Skeptical's path?

I was meaning that lying in the dirt or whatever probably doesn't seem to be appropriate in this day and age ... especially when you compare it to japa

 

[lightgigantic]

Quite the contrary.
I became a religious non believer at age 15, after many years under the influence of my religious parents. I am now 62, meaning I have had 47 years to ponder the question of evidence for and against religious beliefs. That is hardly 'not pausing'!

He's talking about your contributions on this thread, not your life story

 

[wynn]

I was meaning that lying in the dirt or whatever probably doesn't seem to be appropriate in this day and age ... especially when you compare it to japa

To me, there is no difference between the two.

 

[lightgigantic]

To me, there is no difference between the two.

at least its easier to wash a japa bag

 

[gmilam]

Not pausing is exactly what you have done and then went ahead with asserting your own conclusion.

Many of us have had decades to pause and ponder many philosophical naval gazings and have found them to be somewhat lacking.

 

[wynn]

Many of us have had decades to pause and ponder many philosophical naval gazings and have found them to be somewhat lacking.

Indeed, naval gazing ...

 

[gmilam]

Indeed, naval gazing ...

Jeez, did I use the wrong spelling? How embarrassing. That's what I get for posting before morning coffee.