Pseudo-scientific-atheism

-=-

No. It REALLY is NOT smug to laugh out loud and in the face of someone who is trying to seriously tell me Xenu The Intergalactic Warlord needs a-dolla-fif-dee to properly a line my theta-soul towards alpah-centary-mecca178TX.
Most Christians would agree that is not smug.
 
And THAT'S the funny thing isn't it? I mean, most Xians and Muslims smugly don't even consider Scientology a religion. Well, come to think of it Xians smugly consider Islam devil inspired. Oh, and Muslims smugly think the Bible is corrupted (probably by the devil) and only the Qur'an is perfect.
Haaa!
 
michael said:
Scientology is a Religion. It is no different than Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Mormonism. etc...
Click to expand...
There is something to be said for maturity, in a cult. If it survives its misbegotten cult phase, I would not be too shocked to see Scientology morphing under the influence of its Last True Prophet (a Japanese Peruvian who received the Message while contemplating the Nazca Lines) into a religion of compassion and self-sacrifice, with all that stuff about Xenu understood as a metaphor for the human place in the cosmos, and medical missions established among the poor in dozens of major cities.
 
spidergoat said:
Nothing you said makes any sense.
Click to expand...

because you do not comprehend the bottle neck within the sciences


i posted
Heat is not a property of energy: (show me heat within an atom at BEC as the energy is still there)

is heat a property? yes or no

if i bust open a 'cold' atom, (split it) will it release energy? What is that energy?


i posted
because the second law of thermodynamics is (a macro analogy of hot going cold), placed within the confines of the micro scale without the comprehension of what HEAT is, in the first place.

if you do not comprehend that, then you are not up to speed on Planck's Constant and the 1901 pub, by planck himself, creating 'h'

so the lack of comprehension is on you; not me


i posted


Heat is just em causing motion to mass; all cases!

is that a true statement or not?

and if you do not comprehend the dichotomy of all time then i suggest you learn a bit more on the
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y5713188v9w4p455/


the math, and what the dichotomy is


meaning if you comprehended the math you would already know how this argument plays out...

"A given mutation could have occurred randomly or it could have occurred by design."

That is flat wrong. You have drawn a false dichotomy here. Evolution could very well be guided by a deity, and therefore designed, yet the mutations would still be random to us. We can, however, discern no pattern, purpose, or objective from scientific methods, ergo it is random as judged by science.
Click to expand...


the math is based on 'random uncertainties'

and reality proves that is BS
 
Heat is energy. It doesn't matter if it occurs on the level of a single atom, neither does gravity (in any significant way).
 
spidergoat said:
Heat is energy.
Click to expand...
and that STATEMENT you make is why during the time of 'creating' heat based engines (steam power) that the 2LoT was created (macro scale)

It doesn't matter if it occurs on the level of a single atom,
Click to expand...
yes it does, if the PHYSICS of mass and energy are important!

and i say, the math to define the causality is more important than what the acceptances are.

eg... a single word (fire) can move tons of mass from a building; so do not be so moved to find a single wavelength could cause "the butterfly affect" (causality) of an action, that rolls thru a system (completely removing the 'uncertainties' by digging deep enough into the causality)

just because the 'community' can live on steam (hot air), reality does not!

neither does gravity (in any significant way).
Click to expand...
BULL; see entanglement! See casimir, see vander waals......... the energy is far more important than you realize as gravity IS from the potential of entangled bodies of mass by the associating energy (the moon faces us for this exact reason; the energy is exchanging back and forth on ONE side)

You want physical evidence: Single wavelengths can impose a potential to less than 1000 atom of rubidium in real live experiments (real data, not hypothetical) (you look it up your damn self)

Heck: see the geiko's feet and find, the wavlength shared is of far greater of potential than his weight. (the energy (em) is exchanging back and forth, not electrons)

this bridging of reality and existing phenomenon is what combines the sciences. (not making up new shit (dark matter/energy, black holes, gluon, quarks, graviton, higgs; the list is huge))



p/s........................ answer the rest of the questions on THAT POST above.

not just "Heat is energy"......................

then also reply with you EXACT questions; that you were WHINNING about!
 
I have yet to hear anything pseudo-scientific about rationalizations for atheism. Anyone care to give examples?
 
Lucysnow said:
This is a term coined by another member from a different thread:

"Pseudo-scientific atheist =Atheism blended with the style that an unscientific actor would exude if he were trying to portray a scientist but presented with a smug superiority similar to that of a born again Christian who believes that they have been saved and that they have found the one and only truth in the word of God as found in the Bible."

Its an interesting point. Is pseudo-scientific atheism a replacement for religion in the lives of the atheist? In short does it resemble religious fervor, obstinacy and unquestioned dedication?

Does anyone recognize the following behaviour on sciforums?


"I would just call these people atheists if they did not have a religious like blind conviction in the truth and superiority of beliefs and did not pretend that their beliefs were scientific. The incorrect pretension that their beliefs are scientific is one of the articles of faith of this religion. Members of this faith typically believe whatever fits better with how an actor would act the role of a scientist when they don't have real information on which to form a belief. That is why I call this religion pseudo-scientific because they work the look of science and pretend that the look of science is knowledge rather than taking the truly scientific attitude of just not knowing the truth about those subjects that can't be known. I think there psychological factors shaping this religion that I am calling pseudo-scientific atheism. One factor is a feeling of having been at least mildly oppressed by theism and the other factor is an attachment to a pride in being intellectually superior to the average theist. At least that is how I interpret what I see. And the average member of this pseudo-scientific atheist religion probably is significantly intellectually superior to the average theist but they don't need to get all proud of their intelligence and their culture."

Are our atheist members actually atheist fundies and guilty of pseudo-scientific atheism? Are atheists here smug or does this reaction stem from something else?
Click to expand...

Lucy, I am not sure I really understand the stereotype you are trying to define / discuss. Can some examples be shown?
 
Crunchy Cat said:
Lucy, I am not sure I really understand the stereotype you are trying to define / discuss. Can some examples be shown?
Click to expand...

Well another member has said of atheists here on sciforums that our behaviour towards theists mirrors the religious fervor a theist would display. He says that a scientific atheist would not claim there is no god as science does not disprove nor prove the existence of a god. He claims that to state absolutely there is no god is as pseudo-scientific as the theists stating that there is and attempting to use science to validate their position. In other words he believes we should be neutral like an agnostic and say 'we don't know'.

He also thinks we are as smug and arrogant as the theists in our insistence and stubbornness on this issue (like religious fanatics).
 
Last edited:
Michael said:
And THAT'S the funny thing isn't it? I mean, most Xians and Muslims smugly don't even consider Scientology a religion. Well, come to think of it Xians smugly consider Islam devil inspired. Oh, and Muslims smugly think the Bible is corrupted (probably by the devil) and only the Qur'an is perfect.
Haaa!
Click to expand...

Scientology being acknowledged by the U.S government has always freaked me out. It was the first time I realized that in 100 years they could easily be as mainstream as other religions so I agree with you. Before this I always thought there was a real difference between cults and religion, now I am not so sure.
 
Last edited:
lucy,

Well another member has said of atheists here on sciforums that our behaviour towards theists mirrors the religious fervor a theist would display. He says that a scientific atheist would not claim there is no god as science does not disprove nor prove the existence of a god. He claims that to state absolutely there is no god is as pseudo-scientific as the theists stating that there is and attempting to use science to validate their position. In other words he believes we should be neutral like an agnostic and say 'we don't know'.

He also thinks we are as smug and arrogant as the theists in our insistence and stubbornness on this issue.
Click to expand...
Agnostics are atheists, i.e. they don't believe in gods. And I don't recall recently any atheists here asserting absolutey a belief that gods do not exist.

The overwhelming attitude of atheists here, if it could be called smug, is the certainty that theists cannot support their claims. It is certainly not any type of obstinate insistency that gods do not exist.

But since atheists here do have a wide range of views it would not surprise me to see some inconsistency. At least one actual example would be helpful.
 
But can science conclusively show there is no god behind the natural processes of life, the universe and everything?

I'm an atheist but I am not a scientist, I simply do not believe in god. So if someone asked me to prove there was no god my only response is for them to prove that there is. The atheists here who are students of science or scientists themselves would have a different answer I presume.
 
You can't "prove" there isn't a god, but you can show that the balance of probabilities indicates strongly that there isn't.
 
I believe science can indeed discount (disprove) certain Gods, specifically some of the most common versions. It's not pseudoscience to use empirical observation and reason to discount a hypothesis that isn't viable. Absolute faith in 100% certainty is not scientific, but what I profess is firm confidence based on evidence, which is something different. I know that given new information, my assumptions would need to be revised, but so far that hasn't happened.
 
No, more a lack of any evidence whatsoever.
If there's no evidence at all, and no indication that there is any likely to be any then how can the hypothesis stand?
 
Lucysnow said:
Well another member has said of atheists here on sciforums that our behaviour towards theists mirrors the religious fervor a theist would display.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that member could provide examples. I'm just having a hard time picturing an atheist equivalent of "Believe or you will be tortured in the pits of hell for all eternity!".

Lucysnow said:
He says that a scientific atheist would not claim there is no god as science does not disprove nor prove the existence of a god.
Click to expand...

Ahhh I see. This is a fallacy (forgot the name) where the asserter is defining his own playing field. The reality is that science (or specifically the knowledge gained from science combined with logic) does in fact disprove every human claim of god. What it doesn't disprove is the existence of a generic life form with qualities we might consider god-like.

Lucysnow said:
He claims that to state absolutely there is no god is as pseudo-scientific as the theists stating that there is and attempting to use science to validate their position. In other words he believes we should be neutral like an agnostic and say 'we don't know'.
Click to expand...

I hope you caught the fallacy in that. He is trying to define the playing field again based on his particular belief. He is correct that the assertion "no god-life life forms" exist is not evidence based. He is incorrect that the assertion "no human-claimed gods exist" is not evidence based.

Lucysnow said:
He also thinks we are as smug and arrogant as the theists in our insistence and stubbornness on this issue (like religious fanatics).
Click to expand...

That might be true for some atheists and not true for others. Both smugness and arrogance can have many causes. I would ask why it matters? If a person values truth then the evidence will stand on it's own independent of how nicely, smugly (heh I like that), or arrogantly its presented. If a person doesn't value truth then trying to argue with a person who does isn't going to get them anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top