Argument I don't understand
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2014, 05:54 PM
Brick RE: Argument I don't understand
(08-10-2014 10:12 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The common person doesn't understand that we are evolutionary influenced to be quality at seeing patterns or seeing patterns where there are none for our survival... so they attribute these concepts to a higher force.

Bingo, our survival was and partly is still key to being able to recognize patterns in nature. That is why we see a man on the moon and faces from just three circles.

We don't know if other animals can do this but from the fact that there is butterflies with faces on their wings for a defense mechanism, we can assert that what we have is a common trait for other species as well.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
14-10-2014, 09:51 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(13-10-2014 05:21 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A natural pattern that you see in nature could be a new discovery waiting to be uncovered.

Asserting the pattern is evidence of an imaginary figure is like saying rain is evidence of a cloud monster crying.

I beg you. Please grow up.

We're talking about obeying god unto doing what he says then seeing counter-natural patterns. Again, giving money away and then having monetary needs provided for in abundance.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(13-10-2014 05:54 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(08-10-2014 10:12 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The common person doesn't understand that we are evolutionary influenced to be quality at seeing patterns or seeing patterns where there are none for our survival... so they attribute these concepts to a higher force.

Bingo, our survival was and partly is still key to being able to recognize patterns in nature. That is why we see a man on the moon and faces from just three circles.

We don't know if other animals can do this but from the fact that there is butterflies with faces on their wings for a defense mechanism, we can assert that what we have is a common trait for other species as well.

I understand. You are referring to the phenomenon called Apophenia? How do most people see a god(s) when god is invisible? I get looking at clouds and seeing a face, but I don't get looking at nothing and seeing a face (of god).

Nor is it Apophenic (sic) to read the Bible, then do what it says, then measure the outcome(s). There's a definite difference between literally doing a test where the Bible says "test God with X" and praying for god to do something you desire and then rejecting him based (ostensibly) on the outcome.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 05:21 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  A natural pattern that you see in nature could be a new discovery waiting to be uncovered.

Asserting the pattern is evidence of an imaginary figure is like saying rain is evidence of a cloud monster crying.

I beg you. Please grow up.

We're talking about obeying god unto doing what he says then seeing counter-natural patterns. Again, giving money away and then having monetary needs provided for in abundance.

Except there is no evidence for that, only anecdotes and lies.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 10:50 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We're talking about obeying god unto doing what he says then seeing counter-natural patterns. Again, giving money away and then having monetary needs provided for in abundance.

Except there is no evidence for that, only anecdotes and lies.

If by no evidence you mean "peer reviewed research," we both understand that tenured faculty simply do not receive much funding to look at metaphysical ideas under the current prevalent paradigm that scientism = science.

If by anecdotes, however, you mean millions, even billions of iterations from Christian testimony, you are confusing words like "anecdotal" and "documented" or "commonplace".

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Except there is no evidence for that, only anecdotes and lies.

If by no evidence you mean "peer reviewed research," we both understand that tenured faculty simply do not receive much funding to look at metaphysical ideas under the current prevalent paradigm that scientism = science.

If by anecdotes, however, you mean millions, even billions of iterations from Christian testimony, you are confusing words like "anecdotal" and "documented" or "commonplace".

Oh, goody - the "science = scientism" straw man. Theists, new agers, and post-modernists love to trot that one out.

If tenured faculty receive no funding to look at metaphysical ideas, how is it that there are thousands of philosophy professors at universities?

And by 'anecdotes' I mean anecdotes. Personal experiences from people prone to confirmation bias are not evidence. Without experimental controls and objective measures, it is just stories.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
14-10-2014, 01:42 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 10:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 10:50 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If by no evidence you mean "peer reviewed research," we both understand that tenured faculty simply do not receive much funding to look at metaphysical ideas under the current prevalent paradigm that scientism = science.

If by anecdotes, however, you mean millions, even billions of iterations from Christian testimony, you are confusing words like "anecdotal" and "documented" or "commonplace".

Oh, goody - the "science = scientism" straw man. Theists, new agers, and post-modernists love to trot that one out.

If tenured faculty receive no funding to look at metaphysical ideas, how is it that there are thousands of philosophy professors at universities?

And by 'anecdotes' I mean anecdotes. Personal experiences from people prone to confirmation bias are not evidence. Without experimental controls and objective measures, it is just stories.

Which philosophy professors in this entire world currently have fellowship or grant money to prove that a particular philosophy/religion is true?

Are you saying that scientism isn't mainstream in academia and science? Are you saying it is a minority paradigm overlaying scientific research?

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 10:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, goody - the "science = scientism" straw man. Theists, new agers, and post-modernists love to trot that one out.

If tenured faculty receive no funding to look at metaphysical ideas, how is it that there are thousands of philosophy professors at universities?

And by 'anecdotes' I mean anecdotes. Personal experiences from people prone to confirmation bias are not evidence. Without experimental controls and objective measures, it is just stories.

Which philosophy professors in this entire world currently have fellowship or grant money to prove that a particular philosophy/religion is true?

They are all paid salaries. I call that funding.

And, of course, there is this.

And the Templeton Prize.

Quote:Are you saying that scientism isn't mainstream in academia and science? Are you saying it is a minority paradigm overlaying scientific research?

Yes, scientism is not mainstream. It is a bogeyman trotted out by theists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-10-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: Argument I don't understand
Scientism, the cousin of Darwinism, feminazis, and wellfare queens.

People with shitty arguments love them some straw and bogeymen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
15-10-2014, 11:14 AM
RE: Argument I don't understand
(14-10-2014 01:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-10-2014 01:42 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which philosophy professors in this entire world currently have fellowship or grant money to prove that a particular philosophy/religion is true?

They are all paid salaries. I call that funding.

And, of course, there is this.

And the Templeton Prize.

Quote:Are you saying that scientism isn't mainstream in academia and science? Are you saying it is a minority paradigm overlaying scientific research?

Yes, scientism is not mainstream. It is a bogeyman trotted out by theists.

Honestly, I'm an open book here. I'm asking to learn and clear up any misconceptions. I'm not asking this to bait you or Robby. Please tell me how scientism is not entrenched in academia and the sciences today. In other words, I know there are theist scientists but there seems to be an anti-metaphysics leaning in the sciences and research. I am not a scientist or scientific researcher.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: