The joys of life without God
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
(Q) said:
I like this! I think I wanna try it myself since I don't accept the authority of "The Physics Teacher" vol. 35. And I'm going to use green marshmallows
lightgigantic said:
Yes you have Lightee...your epistemology list thread is thoroughly based on accepting an authority and a book as correct, infallible and unquestionable (blind faith).
devils_reject
Registered Senior Member
I recently started going to church again, thanks to my parents. Its really refreshing to say the least, I was brough up in church. I am sort of an off and on type guy
Enterprise-D said:
Even if you want a result in science you have to follow a process - if you follow the process and don't get the result advocated by the book (whether it is scientific or religious) then you have the right to question the book - if however you don't follow the process, then ...... (well I guess you still get to eat the marshmellows)
Last edited:
(Q) said:
This still doesn't escape relying on authority - on the contrary it gets more imbedded in authority because other axioms (such as the relationship between frequency and the speed of light) comes into play - in other words this experiment has absolutely no significance to a person who is not familiar with the established axioms of science (ie authority)
Godless said:
There are many ways to address the flaws (the main one being the exact relationship between the pope and god - namely is he merely a material figurehead for a spritual institution or does the hierarchy of spiritual institutions bear a direct correlation to one's realization of god - in other words is god impressed by material designations in an institution or something else ....)in your above statement but perhaps it would be less time consuming if you provide a link to the quote by the pope in question
KennyJC said:
The point is that if you follow the given process you come to the platform of perceiving the evidence - if you want to determine whether the claims of astrology are valid or invalid you would have to at least understand what the claims of astrology are - in the same way to undermine the claims of religion you would have to first understand what the claims of religion are and the processes advocated to understand and perceive those claims - if you are reluctant to do this then I guess one has no choice but to be marooned by one's recalcitrant views - much like the highschool drop out in regards to the electron
lightgigantic said:
The body of knowledge we call science has the ability to examine claims made by Astrologists and if there was evidence to justify their claims, it would be looked at. Since there is no evidence for the claims of Astrologists, their belief is superstitious. I and most other people have a good understanding of the claims made by Astrology, but that does not necessarily result in belief.
Same as a professor in theology. They are experts in their field and have a better understanding of religion than most theists, yet that is not a guaruntee that they believe in it.
No matter how hard you try to escape this fact, LG, it's all down to faith/belief.
KennyJC said:
But you haven't even addressed what the claims of religion are - nor the process to perceive those claims - so its very difficult to understand on what grounds you establish that religion is false.
You seem to be stating that the claims of religion cannot be verified by science - but there are many things that cannot be verified by science, even within science, such as consciousness for eg, what to speak of the consciousness of more elevated personalities than humans
lightgigantic said:
Your famous epistemology stated that the bible was true because it said so. I am going by that premise for the time being.
Yes well we have evidence for the existence of 'conciousness', that is the difference. Even if it's not yet completely understood, we have scientific evidence of it's existence.
lightgigantic said:Even if you want a result in science you have to follow a process - if you follow the process and don't get the result advocated by the book (whether it is scientific or religious) then you have the right to question the book - if however you don't follow the process, then ...... (well I guess you still get to eat the marshmellows)
Ah but most agnostics and athiests by attempted indoctrination have indeed followed your process, and most of them don't hallucinate the desired result. These same people also try science and logic, and find answers...or even sometimes better questions!
Inherently as well, the steps in the scientific process all can be proven or can be logically justified. Your 'epistemology' steps ALL require some sort of blind faith or dependance on unquestioned authority.
Oh yeah, and toasty green marshmallows taste good
c7ityi_ said:
Going by the dictionary, 'conciousness' is a collection of different functions controlled by the brain; sensations, thoughts, awareness of surroundings, emotions etc... All of which have a physical basis within the brain as I am sure most neuroscientists would back me up on.
lightgigantic said:
This argument is a waste of time. What do unverifiable hypotheses in science have to do with anything in religion? Proof of a factor in science has nothing to do with the lack of proof of anything in religion.
Further, science cannot prove a single theist claim. Not one. This is not to say that the burden of proof is on the scientific community in the first place. At any rate, theists can't prove them either. Scientists can prove all of the theories that are currently accepted as scientific truth (note the lack of the word "absolute").
c7ityi_ said:
Were you trying to be cute or were you unconscious when you typed this question? Consciousness is self-evident because you experience it yourself and observe it about yourself.
(Outside of neuroscience that is Kenny...)
Yea! but then again it's fun to see him squirm, with his delusional mindset.
Yea! C7 we discused here many times solipsism however there's a comon flaw to this, it can't be true, because if I were the only consciousness and everyone else is just part of my imagination, then you wouldn't exist!
And do you exist C7? Or are you just part of my imagination? Your consciousness, your life that you perceived actually, I programed it into my computer, you are a figment of my program Kenny
Looks like you didn't read the thread properly - it says something about being particularly relevant to the vedas - but that said most of the principles are general enough to apply to most scriptures
The only scientific evidence of consciousness is perhaps an analysis of some of the methods of chemical information utilized by living entities - there is no molecular formula for consciousness - the closest thing to understanding consciousness comes from some philosophical aspects of psychology - something generally not held in high regard by reductionists .... (hence the general opinion is , according to science and philosophy, that the self doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it - what do you think about that ....... the fact that you can think about it indicates there are a few vital steps missing from such well thought out synopses)
Looks like you didn't read the thread properly - it says something about being particularly relevant to the vedas - but that said most of the principles are general enough to apply to most scriptures
The only scientific evidence of consciousness is perhaps an analysis of some of the methods of chemical information utilized by living entities - there is no molecular formula for consciousness - the closest thing to understanding consciousness comes from some philosophical aspects of psychology - something generally not held in high regard by reductionists .... (hence the general opinion is , according to science and philosophy, that the self doesn't exist because there is no evidence for it - what do you think about that ....... the fact that you can think about it indicates there are a few vital steps missing from such well thought out synopses)
Enterprise-D
Well the first question is to determine what the process is - I think we have been this way before - all that you came up with was that the process innvolved placing one's backside on a seat in a building that has a sign something like "church" out the front - apparently the longer one has done this the more qualified one is in the field ....
Well the first question is to determine what the process is - I think we have been this way before - all that you came up with was that the process innvolved placing one's backside on a seat in a building that has a sign something like "church" out the front - apparently the longer one has done this the more qualified one is in the field ....
The processes can only be logically justified by an authority - in other words by someone who has successfully applied the relevant methodology, in the case of the science experiment - certainly they cannot be justified by a high school drop out
Thats nice